Dang Samantha...

[RandomGuy]

t88X1pYQu-I

Nailed it.

Yes, let's start getting rid of guns with high rates of fire, and large magazines.

[clambake]

i should be the only one allowed to have them.

[boutons_deux]

getting rid of guns with high rates of fire, and large magazines.

Too late.

Damage is done and undoable.

BigGun owns, will continue to own, more than enough politicians at all levels to block any profit-reducing regulations.

If you have a way to "get rid of ...", say precisely how to proceed overriding BigGun's $Ms per year to whore politicians.

[SpursforSix]

t88X1pYQu-I

Nailed it.

Yes, let's start getting rid of guns with high rates of fire, and large magazines.

what determines a high rate of fire? The AR-15 that always seems to be the target of these bans doesn't have a significantly different rate of fire than many hunting rifles.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

what determines a high rate of fire? The AR-15 that always seems to be the target of these bans doesn't have a significantly different rate of fire than many hunting rifles.

The action of the firing mechanism. Ban semiautos and watch the gun makers try to semanticize their way out of it.

[SpursforSix]

The action of the firing mechanism. Ban semiautos and watch the gun makers try to semanticize their way out of it.

You'd then be talking about banning an enormous amount of handguns that are legitimately used for self defense in the home.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You'd then be talking about banning an enormous amount of handguns that are legitimately used for self defense in the home.

Buy a revolver.

[SpursforSix]

Buy a revolver.

So you're telling the law abiding gun owners that their ability to defend their home has been diminished because you want to lump all semi autos together.

[RandomGuy]

what determines a high rate of fire? The AR-15 that always seems to be the target of these bans doesn't have a significantly different rate of fire than many hunting rifles.

More than 10 rounds a minute?

That is still an order of magnitude faster than rates of fire when the 2nd amendment was written.

Personally I am for repealing the 2nd amendment. It was a mistake, just like slavery.

[RandomGuy]

So you're telling the law abiding gun owners that their ability to defend their home has been diminished because you want to lump all semi autos together.

Yup. Deal with the cost.

Because I think we have had enough mass shootings.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you're telling the law abiding gun owners that their ability to defend their home has been diminished because you want to lump all semi autos together.

I'm talking about banning sales. Every non-mouthbreather knows that the courts won't stand for allowing confiscation. Personally I use a pump action shotgun for home protection and I own several semiautos.

[101A]

Yup. Deal with the cost.

Because I think we have had enough mass shootings.

How many millions are already in circulation (semi-autos)? We'll have to confiscate & destroy. There are too many already out there to keep them out of the hands of people who want to hurt other people. I have 5 that fit the criteria myself. Two handguns, two hunting rifles and a shotgun.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How many millions are already in circulation (semi-autos)? We'll have to confiscate & destroy. There are too many already out there to keep them out of the hands of people who want to hurt other people. I have 5 that fit the criteria myself. Two handguns, two hunting rifles and a shotgun.

You can offer a buyback but the courts would never stand for it so why even bother trying to confiscate. I have several as well. You do what you can but not having a perfect solution is no reason to do nothing.

[101A]

I'm talking about banning sales. Every non-mouthbreather knows that the courts won't stand for allowing confiscation. Personally I use a pump action shotgun for home protection and I own several semiautos.

Exactly. So banning sales does what? Makes someone who would otherwise kill a bunch of people (break the law) not because he won't illegally obtain a semi-auto (break the law)?

[101A]

You can offer a buyback but the courts would never stand for it so why even bother trying to confiscate. I have several as well. You do what you can but not having a perfect solution is no reason to do nothing.

I get it; and maybe it works for some of these, but I think we've made a bed we're going to have to live in for a very long time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Exactly. So banning sales does what? Makes someone who would otherwise kill a bunch of people (break the law) not because he won't illegally obtain a semi-auto (break the law)?

Well it would have prevented the Orlando guy from buying his weapon and it would begin the process of reducing the supply of such weapons in general. The solution is not to flood the market with more.

Again, it's not perfect because of the constitution but it is a start and comprehensive to the handgun and semiauto weapon problem this country has.

[101A]

Well it would have prevented the Orlando guy from buying his weapon and it would begin the process of reducing the supply of such weapons in general. The solution is not to flood the market with more.

Again, it's not perfect because of the constitution but it is a start and comprehensive to the handgun and semiauto weapon problem this country has.

It would make mine move valuable...

Can you imagine how many would be sold between the passing of the ban and the ban itself?

[SpursforSix]

Yup. Deal with the cost.

Because I think we have had enough mass shootings.

The mass shootings are tragic. But you're talking about limiting millions of people's ability to protect their families based on maybe 500 deaths per year attributed to mass shootings.

[boutons_deux]

"we have had enough mass shootings."

... a tiny %age of gun deaths and injuries per year.

More Americans killed by guns since 1968 than in all U.S. wars, columnist Nicholas Kristof writes

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/

[CosmicCowboy]

"we have had enough mass shootings."

... a tiny %age of gun deaths and injuries per year.

More Americans killed by guns since 1968 than in all U.S. wars, columnist Nicholas Kristof writes

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/




*yawn*

Now take out the suicides and criminals shooting criminals.

[RandomGuy]

How many millions are already in circulation (semi-autos)? We'll have to confiscate & destroy. There are too many already out there to keep them out of the hands of people who want to hurt other people. I have 5 that fit the criteria myself. Two handguns, two hunting rifles and a shotgun.

We can figure out something.

I harbor no illusions that all guns will go away, nor do I wish that to be the case.

I just think we should make it more difficult to murder people.

[RandomGuy]

*yawn*

Now take out the suicides and criminals shooting criminals.

... and there are still plenty of corpses to lay at the feet of the NRA, and blood to fill a stadium.

[boutons_deux]

*yawn*

Now take out the suicides and criminals shooting criminals.

doesn't matter. Guns make killing extremely reliable.

[RandomGuy]

The mass shootings are tragic. But you're talking about limiting millions of people's ability to protect their families based on maybe 500 deaths per year attributed to mass shootings.

... and accidental gun deaths... and single murders...


Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,636 deaths due to "Injury by firearms",[6] or 10.6 deaths per 100,000 people.[4] 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][7]

How many corpses are too many?

[clambake]

10 rounds a minute?

these things are usually over after 8 seconds.

[boutons_deux]

doesn't matter. Guns make killing extremely reliable.

and more white kill whites than blacks kill blacks.

[SpursforSix]

... and accidental gun deaths... and single murders...

that's not really the point you were making or that it seemed like you were making.


Yup. Deal with the cost.

Because I think we have had enough mass shootings.

[RandomGuy]

Let's see... 33,636 per year...

336,000 in a decade, or somewhere over a million people in my lifetime.

That is an awful lot of dead people.

[RandomGuy]

that's not really the point you were making or that it seemed like you were making.

Guns make it easy to end human life, far easier than it should be.

Mass shootings are simply the festering boil that belies the underlying infection.

Better?

[RandomGuy]

It would make mine move valuable...

Can you imagine how many would be sold between the passing of the ban and the ban itself?

A lot.

I harbor no illusions that reducing guns would be easy, nor am I naive enough to think we ever could get rid of all of them, which isn't what I would want anyway.

[Spurminator]

It would make mine move valuable...

Can you imagine how many would be sold between the passing of the ban and the ban itself?

Sure, they'd be more valuable... therefore more expensive, therefore more likely to be sold to collectors vs. criminal hotheads. It's a step in the right direction.

[pgardn]

10 rounds a minute?

these things are usually over after 8 seconds.

So the Orlando guy killed 49 people and injured 53 in 8 seconds...

Ok that rate is definitely too high.

[pgardn]

what determines a high rate of fire? The AR-15 that always seems to be the target of these bans doesn't have a significantly different rate of fire than many hunting rifles.

Whoa...

I watched this thing fire as fast as a finger twitch. The hunting rifles I have seen fired don't have magazines. You just buy rounds. Hmmm... I am not a gun expert so I guess I need to see the rest of my friends arsenal.

[SpursforSix]

Whoa...

I watched this thing fire as fast as a finger twitch. The hunting rifles I have seen fired don't have magazines. You just buy rounds. Hmmm... I am not a gun expert so I guess I need to see the rest of my friends arsenal.

yep. Here's a hunting rifle that was able to get off 6 shots in less than a second.

GXEK7rcqO-Y

[SpursforSix]

Whoa...

I watched this thing fire as fast as a finger twitch. The hunting rifles I have seen fired don't have magazines. You just buy rounds. Hmmm... I am not a gun expert so I guess I need to see the rest of my friends arsenal.

and here's another hunting rifle that can do a lot of damage very quickly

lND51FkLuFU

[RandomGuy]

yep. Here's a hunting rifle that was able to get off 6 shots in less than a second.

GXEK7rcqO-Y

DIE SQUIRRELS DIE!

[russellgoat]

Let's see... 33,636 per year...

336,000 in a decade, or somewhere over a million people in my lifetime.

That is an awful lot of dead people.


Isn't that per year number you gave including people chosing over their own bodies? How is that a bad thing?

[pgardn]

yep. Here's a hunting rifle that was able to get off 6 shots in less than a second.

GXEK7rcqO-Y

Well ok then.

Got a mess o' hogs surrounded Cletus, and I got a hard feeln in my pants.

[spurraider21]

Personally I am for repealing the 2nd amendment. It was a mistake, just like slavery.
personally i'm for the SCOTUS actually acknowledging that the first half of the 2nd amendment, in fact, exists

[pgardn]

Isn't that per year number you gave including people chosing over their own bodies? How is that a bad thing?

I guess it's kinda sad that people feel poorly enough to do themselves in.
Im thinkin this is a bad thing. But you know, that's just me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

personally i'm for the SCOTUS actually acknowledging that the first half of the 2nd amendment, in fact, exists

You mean like how they are extremely consistent in not allowing confiscation and quote it?

[101A]

personally i'm for the SCOTUS actually acknowledging that the first half of the 2nd amendment, in fact, exists

Not sure that would change anything, TBH

Official definitions of "Militia" in Texas:



Sec. 431.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Reserve militia" means the persons liable to serve, but not serving, in the state military forces.
(1-a) "Servicemember" has the meaning assigned by Section 161.551 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/GetStatute.aspx?Code=HS&Value=161.551), Health and Safety Code.
(2) "State militia" means the state military forces and the reserve militia.
(3) "State military forces" means the Texas National Guard, the Texas State Guard, and any other active militia or military force organized under state law.

[spurraider21]

No sure what that would change? Maybe you have to be a member of a militia to buy a gun

[RandomGuy]

Isn't that per year number you gave including people chosing over their own bodies? How is that a bad thing?

That is a good point.

Ask their relatives.

I personally am in favor of the right to die, generally.

That said, even taking out the number of gun-assisted suicides, you still have 10,000+ deaths that would be arguably prevented, were guns not to exist, or be severely restricted.

Australia has some fairly heavy restrictions on guns, and, unsurprisingly, hasn't had a mass shooting in almost two decades.

Leaving us STILL with the question:

How many people are we willing to sacrifice on the altar of gun ownership every year?

[Ignignokt]

Does Summers want to ban big guns or swallow them?

heyoooo!!

[101A]

No sure what that would change? Maybe you have to be a member of a militia to buy a gun

Look at the definition of "Reserve Militia"; could be anyone.

[boutons_deux]

and the 2nd Amendment militia was in the absence of a US standing army of any import, so the militia was to defend against external threats, not to police/overthrow/revolt against the (national, state) govt.

[spurraider21]

Look at the definition of "Reserve Militia"; could be anyone.
Reserve militia is considered unorganized militia whereas second amendment specifies well regulated militia

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao at the amateur constitutional scholars in here.

#fullofshit

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Does Summers want to ban big guns or swallow them?

heyoooo!!

I dunno. Is Obama a better president than you ever would be?

[RandomGuy]

:lmao at the amateur constitutional scholars in here.

#fullofshit

:lmao

Such is the nature of the internets.

Leaving us STILL with the question, aside from interpretations of the constitution:

How many people are we willing to sacrifice on the altar of gun ownership every year?

[RandomGuy]

“GUN violence requires more than moments of silence. It requires action. In failing that test, the Senate failed the American people.”

[SnakeBoy]

Such is the nature of the internets.

Leaving us STILL with the question, aside from interpretations of the constitution:

How many people are we willing to sacrifice on the altar of gun ownership every year?

As many as it takes imo.

[pgardn]

As many as it takes imo.

Takes to what?

[mingus]

Such is the nature of the internets.

Leaving us STILL with the question, aside from interpretations of the constitution:

How many people are we willing to sacrifice on the altar of gun ownership every year?

You can frame pretty much anything that way: vehicles, airplanes, alcohol, knives, hammers etc etc.

I guess the answer to the question is fairly obvious. When the bad that comes with freedoms starts to actually negatively affect a significant size of the population enough to where they're willing to give them up, is when guns will be confiscated, banned, whatever.

And no matter what scare-tactics & how much fear mongering you & the left media do to try to make this a reality, the actual reality is death caused by mass shooting is extremely, extremely, EXTREMELY rare.

The question I have for you is, what's the cut-off number of deaths allowable by guns? At what arbitrary point do guns become worth banning?

[SnakeBoy]

Takes to what?

To keep our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

[Th'Pusher]

To keep our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

So, one Sandy Hook type massacre a week. You'd be cool with that?

[spurraider21]

:lmao at the amateur constitutional scholars in here.

#fullofshit

:lmao
The second amendment isn't very long. People conveniently choose to interpret it however they need to in an effort to validate their beliefs. My issue with the fight is that they ignore the first half of what is already a short amendment

[SnakeBoy]

So, one Sandy Hook type massacre a week. You'd be cool with that?

I'm always cool with hypothetical scenarios that are never going to happen.

[pgardn]

To keep our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Ok.
understood.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm always cool with hypothetical scenarios that are never going to happen.
Well a ridiculous response like whatever it takes begs for some equally ridiculous hypotheticals. How about this one?

your wife and all her staff get mowed down in her practice by a mentally unstable patient, while you sit at home, unemployed?

You cool with that one?

[Shastafarian]

Leaving us STILL with the question, aside from interpretations of the constitution:

How many people are we willing to sacrifice on the altar of gun ownership every year?

As many as it takes imo.


Takes to what?


To keep our constitutionally guaranteed rights.


So, one Sandy Hook type massacre a week. You'd be cool with that?


I'm always cool with hypothetical scenarios that are never going to happen.
And here I thought CC and TSA being pedo protectors was despicable. Not much compared to a person who think 20 infants being massacred is justified in order for men with small penises to have the ability to kill things from a distance.

[spurraider21]

Infants?

[SnakeBoy]

Well a ridiculous response like whatever it takes begs for some equally ridiculous hypotheticals. How about this one?

your wife and all her staff get mowed down in her practice by a mentally unstable patient, while you sit at home, unemployed?

You cool with that one?

That's been a daily possibility for 20 years and hasn't changed my (nor my wife's) support of the 2nd amendment so I doubt even that scenario would cause me to blame the gun instead of the person.

Why are you always obsessed with my wife and the fact that I make more than you sitting on my ass at home?

[Shastafarian]

Infants?

I got a little overzealous. Young children. But according to SnakeBoy it wouldn't matter, right?

[RandomGuy]

That's been a daily possibility for 20 years and hasn't changed my (nor my wife's) support of the 2nd amendment so I doubt even that scenario would cause me to blame the gun instead of the person.

Why are you always obsessed with my wife and the fact that I make more than you sitting on my ass at home?

How many thousands of people have to die for this right every year again?

It is sitting at about 33,000.

Guns make it easy for people to kill people. The "guns don't kill people" bullshit doesn't really fly, because it is dishonest in that way.

Without the means to make it easy to kill people, not as many people would be killed.

Pretty fucking straightforward. Introducing an incredibly lethal option into any situation, means that you will have that option excerized.

So the only reasonable question then, is how many dead corpses you are comfortable with. I say 33,000+ every year is too many.

[RandomGuy]

As many as it takes imo.

Ah.

So you would weigh tens of thousands of lives sacrificed every year so that we can own guns.

That is an answer.

or maybe a million?

"as many" doesn't really limit it.

Of course we can measure the cost, in millions of lives, over decades.

[RandomGuy]

You can frame pretty much anything that way: vehicles, airplanes, alcohol, knives, hammers etc etc.

I guess the answer to the question is fairly obvious. When the bad that comes with freedoms starts to actually negatively affect a significant size of the population enough to where they're willing to give them up, is when guns will be confiscated, banned, whatever.

And no matter what scare-tactics & how much fear mongering you & the left media do to try to make this a reality, the actual reality is death caused by mass shooting is extremely, extremely, EXTREMELY rare.

The question I have for you is, what's the cut-off number of deaths allowable by guns? At what arbitrary point do guns become worth banning?

We can indeed.

I think we sacrifice too many people to personal vehicles in the same way. We could just as easily spend trillions on other modes of transportation with lower rates of deaths per passenger mile.

30,000 + dead every year for personal convenience seems pretty fucking steep.

30,000 + dead every year for some hypothetical bullshit rebellion myth seems not only steep but morally outrageous.

[RandomGuy]

And no matter what scare-tactics & how much fear mongering you & the left media do to try to make this a reality, the actual reality is death caused by mass shooting is extremely, extremely, EXTREMELY rare.

The question I have for you is, what's the cut-off number of deaths allowable by guns? At what arbitrary point do guns become worth banning?

More than one per day, depending on how one is willing to define it. It happens so often it doesn't make national news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

It isn't though, mass shooting that you have to worry about, it is the one on one stuff.

That said, I agree with you, the odds of dying in a mass shooting are pretty small. For this reason, I am all for letting in 100,000+ Syrian refugees. The danger of ISIS is extremely overblown, versus the good of providing shelter for people whose lives would be arguably threatened otherwise.

I am not in favor of banning firearms entirely. I am in favor of regulating them a lot like cars. Classes, licenses, and taxes. If you want to own it, you take personal responsibility for it.

[pgardn]

Infants?

Its probably worse that children had to see all that going down.

[mingus]

More than one per day, depending on how one is willing to define it. It happens so often it doesn't make national news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

It isn't though, mass shooting that you have to worry about, it is the one on one stuff.

That said, I agree with you, the odds of dying in a mass shooting are pretty small. For this reason, I am all for letting in 100,000+ Syrian refugees. The danger of ISIS is extremely overblown, versus the good of providing shelter for people whose lives would be arguably threatened otherwise.

I am not in favor of banning firearms entirely. I am in favor of regulating them a lot like cars. Classes, licenses, and taxes. If you want to own it, you take personal responsibility for it.

I'm for a battery of tests (IQ, mental), back ground checks, licensing, and licensing renewal (annually or biannually).

Gun laws are way too lax.

That said, if it's mass killings (and not just shootings) that were trying to tackle I think the general populace, police, teachers, and health professionals need to be better educated on how to asses whether someone's behavior warrants taking it up with authorities. These crazy guys slip through the cracks when usually they leave a trail of evidence, that people just ignore or take for granted. IMO that's the biggest problem of them all. Can you imagine how many lives would be saved if people just went to the police?

As far as Syrian refugees, well that's a whole other topic and it and this one don't entirely overlap at numerous important points.

[boutons_deux]

"Classes, licenses, and taxes."

annual registration fee, annual inspection, liability insurance, FIN (firearm identification number) for every single firearm.

penalty for violations: confiscation and destruction of the firearm.

[TheSanityAnnex]

"Classes, licenses, and taxes."

annual registration fee, annual inspection, liability insurance, FIN (firearm identification number) for every single firearm.

penalty for violations: confiscation and destruction of the firearm.




So now only rich people would own guns. Why do you hate the poor?

[Trainwreck2100]

yep. Here's a hunting rifle that was able to get off 6 shots in less than a second.

GXEK7rcqO-Y

mah 'merica :cry

[SnakeBoy]

We can indeed.

I think we sacrifice too many people to personal vehicles in the same way. We could just as easily spend trillions on other modes of transportation with lower rates of deaths per passenger mile.

30,000 + dead every year for personal convenience seems pretty fucking steep.

30,000 + dead every year for some hypothetical bullshit rebellion myth seems not only steep but morally outrageous.

So is it safe to assume you favor prohibition because 88,000 people die every year due to alcohol?

[RandomGuy]

So now only rich people would own guns. Why do you hate the poor?

Meh. Only rich people own $10,000,000 dollar mansions.

Ref: non sequitur

[RandomGuy]

So is it safe to assume you favor prohibition because 88,000 people die every year due to alcohol?

No. I favor limiting access, and education as to dangers. Education, and fees.

Shocking overrreach, I know.

[SnakeBoy]

No. I favor limiting access, and education as to dangers. Education, and fees.

Shocking overrreach, I know.

Well why aren't you so upset about those 88,000 people per year that you want to ban alcohol? I mean if it's all about the lives lost to you and you want to ban guns to save 30,000 lives why wouldn't you want to do the same to save 88,000 lives per year?

[Spurminator]

Fortunately, the limitations we've placed on who can consume alcohol, and where they can consume it, have done a lot to keep that 88K from being much higher.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Meh. Only rich people own $10,000,000 dollar mansions.

Ref: non sequitur
The arguments against voter ID laws can be applied here as well. The same person that can't drive to get an ID can't drive for their annual inspection, pay for the annual fee, pay for liability etc. the poor would be priced out of legally purchased protection.

[pgardn]

Well why aren't you so upset about those 88,000 people per year that you want to ban alcohol? I mean if it's all about the lives lost to you and you want to ban guns to save 30,000 lives why wouldn't you want to do the same to save 88,000 lives per year?

So who is taking magazine-packed bottles of alcohol and rapidfire slamming the bottles over the heads of 88,000 people who don't want alcohol? This is extraordinary!

You gotta do better than this.

"I secretly stashed the Glen Livet in my pant leg, withdrew the finely tuned scotch, and proceeded to fill shot glasses for 100 people. After the surprise, 47 were dead, 53 injured. All the non drinkers on my list were swiftly annihilated... They knew nothing concerning the sipping of a fine spirit."

[SnakeBoy]

Fortunately, the limitations we've placed on who can consume alcohol, and where they can consume it, have done a lot to keep that 88K from being much higher.

RG isn't talking about limitations on guns. He's advocating a repeal of the 2nd amendment and a complete ban on gun ownership "to save lives". I'm just curious why he doesn't care about those who are dying from alcohol.

[TheSanityAnnex]

No. I favor limiting access, and education as to dangers. Education, and fees.

Shocking overrreach, I know.
Should alcohol manufacturers be held liable for deaths caused?

[mingus]

So now only rich people would own guns. Why do you hate the poor?

If you can't afford to upkeep with gun law requirements/restrictions, then your worry should be about getting a job (not you personally), not a gun.

[Spurminator]

One would assume the cost of registration and other fees would factor into gun pricing over time in a supply/demand system.

[RandomGuy]

RG isn't talking about limitations on guns. He's advocating a repeal of the 2nd amendment and a complete ban on gun ownership "to save lives". I'm just curious why he doesn't care about those who are dying from alcohol.

No, as I said repeatedly, I am not talking about a complete ban on guns, any more than I would want a complete ban on cars.

Owning guns should be a privilege, just like it is a privilege to operate a car. Meet certain criteria, e.g. physical capability, knowledge of laws, etc, and you can have one.

I just don't think it needs to be in the constitution. It isn't that important.

[RandomGuy]

Should alcohol manufacturers be held liable for deaths caused?

Not strictly.

They should be subject to a tax, which they pretty much are already, to compensate society for the true cost of their product, aptly pointed out by Snakeboy:


Well why aren't you so upset about those 88,000 people per year that you want to ban alcohol? I mean if it's all about the lives lost to you and you want to ban guns to save 30,000 lives why wouldn't you want to do the same to save 88,000 lives per year?

This is a really, really good point.

I am upset over the harm that things do, as you should both be as well. Do me/yourself a favor: Look up the concept of "negative externality":
http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Externalities.html

As a concept, it is a very, very useful one, and having it as part of your conceptual framework for thinking about public health things like this, enables one to reach better policy solutions.

Let me know when you have read that bit.

[boutons_deux]

the bullshit from the gun fellators, aka, suckers for BigGun propaganda

y'all want to repeal the 2nd amendment

y'all want to confiscate all guns

y'all want to ban all guns

Everybody has a Constitutional right to have all guns anywhere, all the time, no control at all.

Since gun control is not in the Constitution, gun control in unConstitutional.

etc, etc.

[RandomGuy]

The difference though, between a bottle of beer, and an assault rifle, is that I can't use a beer to mow down dozens of people, who would ultimately have gone on to have meaningful lives.

[RandomGuy]

So who is taking magazine-packed bottles of alcohol and rapidfire slamming the bottles over the heads of 88,000 people who don't want alcohol? This is extraordinary!

You gotta do better than this.

"I secretly stashed the Glen Livet in my pant leg, withdrew the finely tuned scotch, and proceeded to fill shot glasses for 100 people. After the surprise, 47 were dead, 53 injured. All the non drinkers on my list were swiftly annihilated... They knew nothing concerning the sipping of a fine spirit."

As noted above, he has a really good point, and revealed something you might agree with:

Gun violence is a public health issue.

Just like drug usage.

I think shifting the way we view the problem, from one of absolute rights, to one of measured consideration of costs/benefits, would make us all better-informed.

[spurraider21]

No, as I said repeatedly, I am not talking about a complete ban on guns, any more than I would want a complete ban on cars.

Owning guns should be a privilege, just like it is a privilege to operate a car. Meet certain criteria, e.g. physical capability, knowledge of laws, etc, and you can have one.

I just don't think it needs to be in the constitution. It isn't that important.
But there is no constitutional right to have a car. A car is therefore a privilege.

With the way the 2nd amendment has been interpreted, you can't really call gun ownership a privilege. There has to be a distinction between laws you think should be in place vs laws that are constitutional

[spurraider21]

The difference though, between a bottle of beer, and an assault rifle, is that I can't use a beer to mow down dozens of people, who would ultimately have gone on to have meaningful lives.
So you'd be cool with guns if not for the mass shootings that account for a tiny percentage of total gun deaths?

[Spurminator]

But there is no constitutional right to have a car. A car is therefore a privilege.

With the way the 2nd amendment has been interpreted, you can't really call gun ownership a privilege. There has to be a distinction between laws you think should be in place vs laws that are constitutional

It sounds like RG is advocating for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, which is not without precedent.

[spurraider21]

Goes against the whole "the right is overreacting, nobody is talking about repealing the 2nd amendment" stuff though

[TheSanityAnnex]

Reserve militia is considered unorganized militia whereas second amendment specifies well regulated militia

It's important to look at what was also said by others at the same time. Pretty obvious they were not strictly talking about only the militia being armed.

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
******'s Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"The Founding Fathers on Arms
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788
"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8The Founding Fathers on Maintaining Freedom
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "
Noah Webster
American Lexicographer
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
Edmund Burke
British Statesman, 1784
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
American Statesman

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Goes against the whole "the right is overreacting, nobody is talking about repealing the 2nd amendment" stuff though

Yeah because RG embodies the left's leadership. And again the SCOTUS has been bipartisanly consistent even if they do actually try.

[spurraider21]

It's important to look at what was also said by others at the same time. Pretty obvious they were not strictly talking about only the militia being armed.
Im sure they believed in weapons to be used in self defense. But they didn't put that in the Constitution. I'm sure they also believed in heterosexual marriage, but they didn't put that in the constitution. They may have meant something but they specifically wrote in "well regulated militia." That doesn't jive with some guy after the fact saying "oh the militia is the whole people."

And original intent often fails with technology. It's not reasonable to expect a centuries old document to accurately depict current times. Can civilians have tanks for self defense from the government too?

[rmt]

To lighten things up a bit regarding guns:

I'll share that I met my husband directly because of GUNS. He and my cousin were out shooting and planned to go bowling afterwards, but didn't want to leave the guns in the car so my cousin said, "My cousin lives 10 minutes from the bowling alley. Why don't we see if we can leave them there?" So the first time I saw my husband he was toting guns into my mom's house. I was folding laundry and they invited me along for bowling. See, what some of you see as "bad" turned out good in our case and I didn't even have to leave my house to find him - was meant to be.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Im sure they believed in weapons to be used in self defense. But they didn't put that in the Constitution. I'm sure they also believed in heterosexual marriage, but they didn't put that in the constitution. They may have meant something but they specifically wrote in "well regulated militia." That doesn't jive with some guy after the fact saying "oh the militia is the whole people."

And original intent often fails with technology. It's not reasonable to expect a centuries old document to accurately depict current times. Can civilians have tanks for self defense from the government too?

AFter the Bill of Rights was passed the Federalist and other publications wrote articles to explain them to the people. A lot of what he quoted was from that.

It doesn't say what he wants though. If the militia is everyone then everyone should be well regulated. SCOTUS has been consistent in not allowing confiscation without criminal cause as well.

It's amusing NRA types acting like they know more than SCOTUs justices who pretty obviously are honoring those ethics.

[spurraider21]

The explanations in the federalist papers ultimately aren't in the Constitution. Just because Barry said you can keep your doctor as an explanation doesn't mean everybody was able to keep their doctor

[TheSanityAnnex]

AFter the Bill of Rights was passed the Federalist and other publications wrote articles to explain them to the people. A lot of what he quoted was from that.

It doesn't say what he wants though. If the militia is everyone then everyone should be well regulated. SCOTUS has been consistent in not allowing confiscation without criminal cause as well.

It's amusing NRA types acting like they know more than SCOTUs justices who pretty obviously are honoring those ethics.

by Daniel J. Schultz The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."


As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly 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 next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."


It is also helpful to contemplate the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights in general. To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.


It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.


In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.


George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.


By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."

Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).



The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.


It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.


This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.


This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."


This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.


This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."
It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."


ENDNOTES

1. In constitutional or statutory construction, language should always be accorded its plain meaning. See, e.g., Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 326 (1816).
2. "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 32.
3. "The Congress shall have Power . . . To raise and support Armies . . . ." U.S. Const., Article I, Section 8, cl. 12.
4. Senate Subcommittee On The Constitution Of The Comm. On The Judiciary, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right To Keep And Bear Arms (Comm. Print 1982), at 5.
5. 3 J. ******, Debates In The Several State Conventions 380 (2d ed. 1836).
6. Originally published under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian," these "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution" first appeared in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, at 2, col. 1. They were reprinted by the New York Packet, June 23, 1789, at 2, cols. 1-2, and by the Boston Centennial, July 4, 1789, at 1, col. 2. The U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 83 L. Ed. 2d 1206, 59 S. Ct. 816 (1939), noted that the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the history and legislation of the colonies and states, and the writings of approved commentators showed that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense -- a body enrolled for military discipline.
7. 11 Papers Of James Madison 307 (R. Rutland & C. Hobson ed. 1977) (letter of Oct. 20, 1788, from Madison to Edmund Pendleton)(emphasis added).
8. An examination of the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights shows that they were designed, like the Second Amendment, to declare rights retained by the people (1-9), or the States (10), and to provide a clear list of powers not given to the national government: "Congress shall make no law . . . ." (Amendment I); "No soldier shall . . . ." (Amendment III); "The right of the people . . . shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue . . . ." (Amendment IV); "No person shall . . .; nor shall any person . . .; nor shall private property be taken . . . ." (Amendment V); "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy . . . ." (Amendment VI); "In Suits at common law . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States . . . ." (Amendment VII); "Excessive bail shall not be required . . . ." (Amendment VIII); "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Amendment IX); "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment X).
9. 3 J. ******, Debates In The General State Conventions 425 (3d ed. 1937) (statement of George Mason, June 14, 1788), reprinted in Levinson, The Embarassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. Rev. 637, 647 (1989). See supra note 6 and accompanying text.
10. Letters From The Federal Farmer To The Republican 123 (W. Bennet ed. 1978) (ascribed to Richard Henry Lee), reprinted in Levinson, supra note 9, at 647. See supra note 6 and accompanying text.
11. S. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, p. 83 (The Independent Institute, 1984).
12. U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990) ("The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'....").
13. "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators." (Article I, Section 4); "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes . . . ." (Article I, Section 8, cl. 3); "The Congress shall have power . . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures . . . ." (Article I, Section 8, cl. 5); "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another." (Article I, Section 9); "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." (Article III, Section 2, cl. 2); "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." (Article IV, Section 2, cl. 3); "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular state." (Article IV, Section 3, cl. 2).
14. See supra, notes 6, 9 and 10 and accompanying text.
15. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following examples of usage for the term "well regulated": 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us . . . well-regulated Appetites, and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time . . . is the adjustment of the difference of time, as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Major." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well- regulated American embryo city." One definition of the word "well" in the Oxford English Dictionary is "satisfactorily in respect of conduct or action." One of The Oxford English Dictionary definitions for the term "regulated" is "b. Of troops: Properly disciplined." The one example of usage is: "1690: Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 'We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.'" The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989).
16. "The Congress shall have Power . . . To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions . . . ." U. S. Const., Article I, Section 8, cl. 15.
17. "The Congress shall have Power . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . . ." U.S. Const., Article I, Section 8, cl. 16.
18. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States . . . ." U.S. Const., Article II, Section 2, cl. 1.
19. U.S. Const., Preamble.
-----
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

[TheSanityAnnex]

g
The explanations in the federalist papers ultimately aren't in the Constitution. Just because Barry said you can keep your doctor as an explanation doesn't mean everybody was able to keep their doctor

The Hamilton papers explain this right of the people as well. Why would the framers want the people armed as a check against a tyrannical government, only to be regulated by the same government?

[spurraider21]

Hamiltons explanation isn't in the Constitution. And if you're going to look at the context of their words at the time then why not restrict capacity and fire rates to weapons at that time?

[TheSanityAnnex]

And to those who try to claim that the founders didn't account for the modernization of weapons get the fuck out. They specifically chose the word arms and not muskets, leaving open for advances in technology.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Hamiltons explanation isn't in the Constitution. And if you're going to look at the context of their words at the time then why not restrict capacity and fire rates to weapons at that time?

I read minds...see above.

[spurraider21]

Do we have a constitutional rights to own rocket launchers and machine guns?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Do we have a constitutional rights to own rocket launchers and machine guns?

You actually do and can legally purchase these things with enough tax stamps and registration with the ATF. Next.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

TSA still fails to articulate his own arguments. The article that he quoted was a bunch of cherry picked nonsense and revisionist bullshit. No link either. I bet its from a shitty fruitbat site.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Im sure they believed in weapons to be used in self defense. But they didn't put that in the Constitution. I'm sure they also believed in heterosexual marriage, but they didn't put that in the constitution. They may have meant something but they specifically wrote in "well regulated militia." That doesn't jive with some guy after the fact saying "oh the militia is the whole people."

And original intent often fails with technology. It's not reasonable to expect a centuries old document to accurately depict current times. Can civilians have tanks for self defense from the government too?

Many civilians own tanks. Next.

[TheSanityAnnex]

TSA still fails to articulate his own arguments. The article that he quoted was a bunch of cherry picked nonsense and revisionist bullshit. No link either. I bet its from a shitty fruitbat site.

Link at the bottom dipshit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You actually do and can legally purchase these things with enough tax stamps and registration with the ATF. Next.

Considering the nature of the review for said registration, it's not a right, dimwit.

[TheSanityAnnex]

TSA still fails to articulate his own arguments. The article that he quoted was a bunch of cherry picked nonsense and revisionist bullshit. No link either. I bet its from a shitty fruitbat site.

For your TLDR attention span

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Considering the nature of the review for said registration, it's not a right, dimwit.

True. But still legal to own.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh look where else the articles author writes:

http://www.breitbart.com/author/daniel-j-schultz/

More breitbart takes from the dimwit.

Here is the articles original publication:

http://djschultzlaw.com/pages/3/index.htm

The "Well Regulated" Militia of the Second Amendment: An Examination of the Framers' Intentions, originally published in the April 1995 issue of The Firearms Sentinel, the newsletter of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership; republished as Chapter 3 in The Militia Movement, Greenhaven Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, ISBN 1-56510-542-7

Figured it was partisan nonsense. Nice job trying to obfuscate.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The explanations in the federalist papers ultimately aren't in the Constitution. Just because Barry said you can keep your doctor as an explanation doesn't mean everybody was able to keep their doctor

The quotes from teh guys who actually wrote the amendment as well as the other framers are compelling. They've been referenced in SCOTUS cases before. Your 100% right to say the other after the fact shit is nonsense.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The article was used as an example of a pro modern militia stance. We have dimwit posting it here. That of course begs the questions: TSA are you a member of a militia? Do you consider yourself a sovereign citizen?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Oh look where else the articles author writes:

http://www.breitbart.com/author/daniel-j-schultz/

More breitbart takes from the dimwit.

Here is the articles original publication:

http://djschultzlaw.com/pages/3/index.htm

The "Well Regulated" Militia of the Second Amendment: An Examination of the Framers' Intentions, originally published in the April 1995 issue of The Firearms Sentinel, the newsletter of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership; republished as Chapter 3 in The Militia Movement, Greenhaven Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, ISBN 1-56510-542-7

Figured it was partisan nonsense. Nice job trying to obfuscate.

Refute it.

[spurraider21]

The quotes from teh guys who actually wrote the amendment as well as the other framers are compelling. They've been referenced in SCOTUS cases before. Your 100% right to say the other after the fact shit is nonsense.
I know they are. But not everybody is an original intent guy.

[Shastafarian]

Why are you guys arguing with a person who would rather defend a child molester than admit a conservative person/position is wrong?

[boutons_deux]

I know they are. But not everybody is an original intent guy.

why the fuck should a country be imprisoned by some ideas from white slave owners with muzzle-loading muskets 250 years ago?

it's as fucking stupid as mental-midget Christian Taliban who unthinkingly retreat into the Bible as hard-core, unchallengeable science, cosmology, history.

"original intent" is retrograde bullshit, which is why conservatives love it. It's a cop out, chickenshit cop out by refusing to address and solve problems in modern society.

[pgardn]

As noted above, he has a really good point, and revealed something you might agree with:

Gun violence is a public health issue.

Just like drug usage.

I think shifting the way we view the problem, from one of absolute rights, to one of measured consideration of costs/benefits, would make us all better-informed.

Cost benefit analysis is extraordinarily difficult IMO.

My advocating for gun deaths to be looked at by public health experts was just to get numbers that could be used. I'm tired of the constant misuse of numbers. Suicides, accidents, use in criminal activity, we don't have good numbers and the NRA wants to keep it that way. It might actually be to the benefit of the NRA and their claims of self defense use to have good numbers. Using the numbers to design laws or prevention is far away IMO.

Now:
I just go by what a particular machine is designed to do. We call Guns weapons. They have a function. We call bombs weapons. So what weapons are individuals allowed to use. Nuclear weapons. Conventional missiles. Hand grenades. Bazookas. Short range artillery. Mortars. Practically anything CAN be used as a weapon but that is not the intended purpose. A gun is a weapon. The gun freaks constantly use diversionary reasoning aided in part by deaths caused by anything other than a weapon. Alcohol, cars... So I am staying out of something very difficult like cost benefit. That would be way, way down the line IMO once we had some sort of good numbers. Meanwhile...

We are getting better at making smaller devices that are weapons. And these can kill lots of people very quickly. Where is the line drawn concerning what type of weapons individuals can own? Because I totally don't get the reasoning. I know it's a difficult task, but a line has to be drawn.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Cost benefit analysis is extraordinarily difficult IMO.

My advocating for gun deaths to be looked at by public health experts was just to get numbers that could be used. I'm tired of the constant misuse of numbers. Suicides, accidents, use in criminal activity, we don't have good numbers and the NRA wants to keep it that way. It might actually be to the benefit of the NRA and their claims of self defense use to have good numbers. Using the numbers to design laws or prevention is far away IMO.

Now:
I just go by what a particular machine is designed to do. We call Guns weapons. They have a function. We call bombs weapons. So what weapons are individuals allowed to use. Nuclear weapons. Conventional missiles. Hand grenades. Bazookas. Short range artillery. Mortars. Practically anything CAN be used as a weapon but that is not the intended purpose. A gun is a weapon. The gun freaks constantly use diversionary reasoning aided in part by deaths caused by anything other than a weapon. Alcohol, cars... So I am staying out of something very difficult like cost benefit. That would be way, way down the line IMO once we had some sort of good numbers. Meanwhile...

We are getting better at making smaller devices that are weapons. And these can kill lots of people very quickly. Where is the line drawn concerning what type of weapons individuals can own? Because I totally don't get the reasoning. I know it's a difficult task, but a line has to be drawn.

No, it's not. The NRA puts up obstructions sure but absent them its not difficult to do. Teh problem is that no comprehensive cost benefit analysis is permitted.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Refute it.

Already did in my first response and after. Now since I know your interested in fairness answer my question:


TSA are you a member of a militia? Do you consider yourself a sovereign citizen?

[pgardn]

No, it's not. The NRA puts up obstructions sure but absent them its not difficult to do. Teh problem is that no comprehensive cost benefit analysis is permitted.

Compared to cars it is. Auto accidents being used as a frequent example by gun people.

I just wanna have a line.
I don't own a missile launcher or a 22.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Already did in my first response and after. Now since I know your interested in fairness answer my question:

no and no.

have you figured out well regulated had a completely different meaning when written then government regulation?

[TheSanityAnnex]

No, it's not. The NRA puts up obstructions sure but absent them its not difficult to do. Teh problem is that no comprehensive cost benefit analysis is permitted.
What magical numbers do you think would be uncovered?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

no and no.

have you figured out well regulated had a completely different meaning when written then government regulation?

Again your breitbart piece didn't give any direct evidence to such. You remain too dumb to articulate on your own it seems.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What magical numbers do you think would be uncovered?

Open mind, dimwit. Why do you think the NRA doesn't want it to happen?