dksuddeth

and well regulated means what to you? I know how jefferson and madison defined it, but how do YOU define it?

Because there is no 'qualifier'. It simply states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It does NOT say that the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

which is why T. Jefferson said that 'no freeman shall EVER be debarred the use of arms?

I'm in no way deluded. They sat around hoping that the davidians would surrender. When they wouldn't, the FBI said enough. People ARE going to come and we'll have a bigger mess on our hands.

And I suppose you wouldn't consider anything reliable unless it came from a congressional report, right? Sessions WAS an idiot, and I don't claim that what I said was the ONLY reason, it was just one of them.

Who said anything about living in a bunker? But if you can't see whats going on in the world, how do you expect anyone to take what you're preaching at face value? MOST of us gun owners would LOVE to live in a peaceful and FREE republic. The problem is that WE understand the price of that freedom, where others do not.


Can the government take your property for public use? Can the government take ALL of your money because you didn't pay enough taxes? Can the government raid your home with flashbangs, machine guns, and get away with murdering members of your family all on the basis of a criminal informant? All of the above is a huge resounding YES, yet you think this isn't opression to you. I feel very sad for you, for you obviously have no idea what freedom is supposed to be.


None of my guns has EVER been stolen. What have I done right that others haven't?

reg·u·late (rgy-lt) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
Now, where does the 2nd Amendment say that a government regulated militia is the ONLY militia? It doesn't. Patrick Henry said 'We are the militia, all of us, save a few elected officials. PH was NOT a regular military member, a national guard member, NOR was he a cop. He was part of the militia. Just like YOU are.

And yet they wrote one of the most famous documents in the entire world. read your history again.

If I was insulting you I'd have said you were a complete dumbass making up history on the spot and tell you that you knew jackshit about the constitution and should get your money back from the university you're studying at. I didn't say that, I made a sarcastic remark, with little tact, saying that you're not as smart as you think you are.


I've consistently said that there are two types of militia, one is the organized and one is the unorganized. The organized IS/WAS the NG and the other one is the rest of us. Yes, the REST of us, meaning YOU and I, and anyone else that fits in the Militia Act. Again, read your history.



No, I don't MEAN to say anything of the sort. I've told you AND showed you that what you say is right (though you've shown ZERO historical documentation to prove your claim), is actually wrong. You STILL choose to believe differently, all the while saying that what I have produced as proof does not mean what the founders intended, even though it was said by the founders, and therefore I am the one that is wrong, illogical, and unreasoning. Therefore, I have to call in to question the education you've received. Too bad if you don't like the fact that I've shown you to be wrong time and again. THAT is not my problem, though it COULD be yours when you find yourself in courts pushing your incorrect ideology.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

fatbob

"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."

Would the job of securing a free state for the people of America, should the Government (or anyone else for that matter) bear arms against them, not fall at the feet of the international community? Given that the 2nd Amendment was written before the UN was formed, does the international community and it's commitment to protecting peace and democracy around the world not take the responsibility off the shoulder of the American public?

__________________
change happens when those who don't normally speak get heard by those who don't normally listen.

Xera

reg·u·late (rgy-lt) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "regulated" [P]
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

ah hell, I hit the wrong damn button. sorry about that.

I was trying to say that a regulated militia is a group of civilians taking up the role of soldier in times of need- and that that group must have, get this, you'll love it, RULES (cause that is what all that definition of regulation means)

__________________

~~^~<@Xera @>~^~~

Willravel

I think that the term must adapt to the times, and it hasn't. I think that in keeping with a situation like we're in now, the National Guard should answer to the State alone, and everyone should serve at least in some way in either federal or state military so that if the need for domestic defence should arise, we'd be ready. The problem, of course, is that 1) people are massively lazy and 2) the federal and state governments are crap with the military. People now-a-days are happy to take from the government and piss but aren't willing to do anything in return. Meinwhile, everyone is satisfied with revolving door policies with weapons manufacturers and politicans and using our troops to enforce economic dominance over places we have no business being. The whole thing is a damn mess, and it would actually be easier at this point to start from scratch than to try and fix the sinking boat.

We couldn't have a real militia in the sense that is both in keeping with the minds of the framers and in keeping with modern times without massive reforms or revolution....so the ammendment has become vestigal; it's useless and meaningless. It's become so twisted that I could argue it gives me the right to bear arms (apendages of large mammals)

as opposed to the right to bear arms (to hold and own weapons).

dksuddeth

which really means that you believe that the constitution is a living document and MUST be adaptable to the times, right? So the war on drugs and terror can be interpreted to allow drug raids and terror raids on all the houses in your neighborhood because the times dictate so?

ANY standing army is inherently dangerous to freedom and liberty, according to the founders. Were they wrong?


so we should rewrite or erase any OTHER right that no longer suits its purpose that was originally intended?

I see other definitions other than 'rules'. Again, regulated does not mean 'government' regulated, otherwise we're not truly free, we're just another force for a government agenda.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

debaser

All this venom, wow.

Can anybody name the last time a legaly owned machine gun was used in the commision of a crime?


Oh, and the archaic meaning of well-regulated (as enshrined in the Bill of Rights) is "well trained". But this is all elementary. If you don't like the second amendment, lobby to get rid of it. But I will tell you this, people will still own guns, it will just be the ones who don't give a damn for your rules (ie criminals).

__________________

Willravel

Yes, I believe that the Constitution, including (read: ESPICALLY) the Bill of Rights, should be a living document that is always kept modern and appropriate based on the clear path set by the founding fathers for the benifit of all people. Drug raids for cocaine, heroin, etc. should be continued. Drug raids on marijuana are a waste of time and money, and an obvious move to distract people from the real problems. Terror raids will be the same thing at the present rate. I have to say, however, that if police or military storm a home because of drugs or terrorism and meet a man with a rifle, no good will come of the situation. Police, military, and civilians will die needlessly, and the real guilty, those who would manipulate us all, will become more powerful. I know you don't want that. No one but the manipulators want that. The real question is: how do you defeat the manipulators? That's where my weapon comes in, my big fat mouth. The more people know of and understand a deciet, the less power and influence it has. Every time I tell someone about Iraq and open their eyes for the first time, I weaken the Bush administration and strengthen the anti-war movement. Every time I explain how marijuana is less dangerous than drinking or smoking, I help another voter understand the anti-marijuana legislation.

shakran

If that's the case then why didn't they explain any other amendment? "a free and vigorous press being necessary to the security of a free state" would have been a great prefix to the 1st amendment. Your logic again does not make sense.


If you want to go based on the intent of T. Jefferson, that means no white landowner will be barred from having a gun.



Yes, you are. You claim they held off the government for 50 days. It's not hard to hold off the government if the government isn't shooting at you.


You seriously think that a responsible journalist considers a congressional report good primary source information? How about something from a newspaper or news magazine? Hell, find me ANY source to back up the outlandish claim you made up.

MOST of you gun owners don't harbor insane delusions that you can take on the military and win.


Yes, and they've done so many times. Why haven't you firebombed the whitehouse yet? I thought you were ready to defend our freedoms with your guns.

1) you're lucky
2) just because you know what you're doing with a gun, storing or shooting it, does not mean everyone else, or even a small majority of everyone else, will know what they are doing.



Hokay, time for some reading comprehension lessons. I have never said a well regulated militia must be a government regulated militia. It can be regulated by the RA in a college dorm for all I care, as long as it's REGULATED. A bunch of fools running around with assault rifles is NOT regulated at all.

Yes, we all know Patrick Henry wanted every man to have a gun. Of course, PH was trying to fight a revolution against an actual tyrannical government - not the one you're imagining. There IS a difference.
This doesn't even make sense in the context of what I wrote.


And you've been consistently wrong.

Considering I don't own a gun, and you say you want to fight the tyrannical government, I am guessing that of the two of us it is not I who needs to worry about being in court.

If you're going to debate with me, at least try to debate with the right person. I didn't write what these lines are in reply to.

Willravel

No, they were absolutely right. ANY standing army is a insane mistake of global proportions. The military as it exists today is one of the -- if not the -- most dangerous forces in history. The thing is, the framers existed in a time before the industrial military complex had bought off politicans for decades in order to creat a perminant standing army in the US. Since that has already happened now, and unringing that bell would take a revolution, we have to work within the confines of reality. We have to work from inside the system we live in.

The use is gone. The words are very outdated, and as the Constitution is alive and growing, it should be made to be relevant again. We've already established that arming the public won't stop the government. We've already established that there already is an armed state militia under the control of the government. If you want an ammendment that gives you the right to rebel, go make one. This isn't it.

shakran

I don't know that I have a problem with a standing army. If we're attacked I'd much rather have a military full of people who've been training for years to defend us than a bunch of civilians who don't know how to load a rifle. I just have a problem with using that army for any reason other than defense.

debaser

The people of Iraq have stopped us cold with much less than what Americans have in thier gun safes.

Don't forget, the idea is not to be able to defeat the government, you could never predict that. It is to be a deterent to the government, just like an armed society is a deterent to criminals.

You can't, it's called the Posse Comitatus Act. While there are some exceptions, for the most part it forbids the use of federal troops in a law enforcement role.

As for the effects of a Democratic legislature, it won't be noticable. Many of the so-called democrats ran on pro-gun platforms. I don't see there being the votes to pass any more meaningless firearms legislation.

Why do you think this?


The right to rebel is meaningless without the ability.

__________________

Willravel

Ah but that's the idea behind a perminant standing army. No one knows what to do in times of peace, and the pressure is always on to be in conflict with someone or something to justify it's existence, it's size, it's cost. For the last 50 years, it was the spread of Communism. Even though democracy and communism can very easily coexist in peace, both sides spun that the other was evil and godless and was an immediate threat....therefore we both became a threat to one another. Had the Soviet Union and the US been close allies instead of continued threats to one another, what reason would there have been for the building up military? Now that the Soviet Union has been collapsed for over a decade, the new threat is global muslim extreemism in the form of terrorism. Even though it's perfectly obvious to anyone who stops and thinks about it, the military will continue to grow and develop new and more powerful weapons to fight terrorism. Of course, we already know how effective conventional military is against terrorism: it's crap. We had fighters all over the US capable of supersonic speeds and blowing a flea off the side of a warship....but they couldn't get a few slow moving commercial liners. I mean the Pentagon, the center of all US inteligence, was hit with a commercial plane long after the WTC towers fell. It should have taken maybe 7-8 minutes to get over the Pentagon....but it they couldn't get there in over an hour. It was was silly. Assuming you don't subscribe to my conspiracy leanings, no military planes were sent up upon learning of a third hijacked plane, after 2 planes had hit the WTC. That means that we wer powerless against the greatest terrorist attack on US soil in history.
Let's say that you have the biggest, most powerful military in the world. Againt you, no conventional military could hope to stand. You could even take on the second, third, and fourth most powerful militaries in the world at once and win. Let's also say that this military is massively expensive. It's so powerful that it's bankrupting your country. Also, the military spending is involved in a revolving door policy between the weapons manufacturers and politicans. In order for the manufacturers, and thus the politicans, to get madly rich, they need to constantly be increasing spending. How coud they possibly justify this in a time of war? That's simple. We seek out enemies. We even create them. We are in a constant state of conflict. But what happens when everyone is subserviant? What happens when we eventually nuke the ME, and China, and Europe? The we turn on ourselves. There has always been healthy descent among Americans because of free speech. I can go out and say that the war in Iraq is wrong, and no one shoots me (yet). Of course, now that it's legal to break the Geneva Convention, Habaes Corpus, etc. What does that mean? I can be arrested for protesting, and they can use ridiculous military and/or police force to get me.

I think the interesting part is that the founders understood the dangers of a standing military hundreds of years ago. These were some amazingly brillient men.
As long as people can buy simple, household items, we will have the ability. Guns are hardly the only weapon of insurgency, and if the government already knows that you have some, you won't be able to do much.

debaser

Interesting, your dislike of the military seems to be based on it's effect on our government, rather than a fear of it being used against the citizenry. I had never looked at it from that perspective.
The government does not know that I own firearms, there is no registration where I live.

Also, refer to the my comments on deterence above. The fact that there are firearms owned is enough to keep the government honest.

__________________

Willravel

I am 100% for a domestic military that consists of volunteers that have normal jobs and do military training on weekends and such. The National Guard is a really good idea, and I support it's existence...but yes, I am against the existence of a standing military because of the effects it has on government and polulace alike.
Fair enough on the registration point, but anyone who understands high school chemestry can build a home made bomb. I have no plans of ever blowing up anything for any reason, and yet I do own all the right elements to make a fairly powerful explosive. And even if you don't know hgow to make the stuff, there are movies that outline the creation exactly. Have you ever seen Terminator or Fight Club? That's all you really need...and I suspect that entertainment media will be legal long after free speech would be gone.

You don't really need guns to protect yourself from the military, and the second ammendment doesn't even cover rebelion.

ratbastid

This is more or less exactly what Eiserhower warned us about in his Farewell Address:

Willravel

Oh, I know I love Eisenhower. Have you seen "Why We Fight"? It only scratches the surface, but it does a really good job as an intruduction to underastainding the military industrial complex.

I wish I could have met Eisenhower.

dksuddeth

Title 10 U.S.C. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Want to rethink your position again?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

The unorganizaed militia answers to the Senate.

dksuddeth

They can be called in to service, they are still a seperate organization.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Ch'i

A seperate organization that answers to the senate and, ultimately, the US government and the laws it enacts.

Let's take a breif overview of the history involved:

The US hadn't created the National Guard until the Dick Act in 1903.
The National Guard is directly affiliated with the Government of the US.
Its safe to say the National Guard is an organized milita that answers to the Federal Gov.

Just to recap, Title 10 U.S.C. 311. Militia: composition and classes, states

The unorganized militia can be split into two subcatagories: constitutional militia (citizen groups who support the intent of the Founding Fathers in regard to the right to keep and bear arms), and private militia (a non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government). Both must adhere to the law. There are currently twelve (give or take) private militias in the US. Here's a list:

Colorado Minutemen
North Carolina Citizen's Militia
Militia of Montana
Michigan Militia
Indiana Militia Corps
Unorganized Militia of Champaign County (Ohio)
Unorganized Hawaii State Militia Hawaii
Terrain Militia 08th MS Team, Freeburg IL
The 51st Missouri Militia
Ranch Rescue
The Monroe Militia
The Black Panther Party

If you look at any of the websites for these militias you'll notice they use non-violent (oddly enough) protest to incite political change, and usually only take up arms for traditional reasons. However, these (the only private militias in the US) entities are in direct support of the Constitution and abide by the law. These private militias can only exist with consent from the government.

dksuddeth

you'll have to show me where the constitution says that I report to the senate. Until then, I say not.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Ch'i

I'll admit the senate connection is vague, but you do have to report to the government.

Amendment XIV
You have to abide by the law, even in a militia.

shakran

Yeah. They got lucky. Don Rumsfeld was in charge and made a mess of everything. They managed to hold off a vastly undersized army that was lead by an idiot. Plus, they didn't exactly stop us cold. We were knocking on Saddam's palace door pretty damn quick after the start of the war. You forget the early days of the war when the air force was being used. The bombers, and the missiles, made hash out of that country's defenses. They folded like a card table.

Oh, and as to the bit about them having less than what Americans have in their gun safes, normal Americans have a rifle or three in there. They do not have improvised explosive devices, AK-47's, or rocket launchers.

Your entire statement falls apart.


What deterrant? The government wasn't deterred going into Iraq, which was able to put up a much greater defense than the civilians in our country ever could. If the government wants to get us, a few dinks with popguns isn't going to make them stop and think.

dksuddeth

Only when called in to service.

Of course, so long as that law doesn't violate or run counter to the constitution.

A couple hundred people with guns doesn't mean much, 80 million is a bit different.

You forget Texas, but thats not a big deal. Militias have a lawful existence, apart from the government, not the consent of. The unorganized militia can be called upon for any of the lawful reasons stated in the laws and the constitution but it is also the check and balance against a government run amuck. Amok? however you spell that word.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Ch'i

You are required by the US government to abide by the law, and if those laws are ever unconstitutional the entity rebelling against the government will not be called a militia.

dksuddeth

so if the US government makes a new law implementing slavery, you're required to abide by it? You are NOT required by the government to abide by the law. Marbury v. Madison, 'any law repugnant to the constitution is null and void.'
Remember, this country gives powers to the government, we are not subjects of the government. Too many 'statists' have elevated government in to the position of our overlords, and that's why we're in the situation we're in now.
although you're wrong, since the populace, or citizens, are the militia at all times, I'm curious as to what you would call that entity then?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

The word you're looking for is "rebelion", and that term is not synonomous with "militia"; as a matter of fact, the terms are mutually exclusive. Also, the populace isn't the militia. A militia is a militia. I'm shit with firearms, so I wouldn't have a place in this militia you mention.

dksuddeth

you still consider the government as the granter of all your rights and priviledges. Thats too bad. The populace IS the militia. Just because you're not efficient with a firearm does NOT exclude you from qualifications as to the militia code. Also, as an american citizen, you should WANT to be proficient with firearms for any eventuality. By not doing so, you're denying your responsibility to the security of a free state.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

The government grants nothing. It enforces the Constitution, which secures my inaliable rights.
Okay, I'll admit that being unwilling to use firearms does not exclude me from being an active member in a rebelion. I'm very good at game theory, I can probably make bombs, and, again, people listen to me. Not only that, but I'm a pretty good martial atrist. That's all useless, of course, because I'm a pacifist. I cannot and will not fight because I understand that all this posturing and fighting and bullshit feeds itself. War begits war, and if no one is willing to say, "No", then it will continue and our posterity will have to deal with it. I'm not interested in handing war ideals down to my daughter's generation.

As for my responsibility to maintain a free state, I do a shitload. Again, I have a really big mouth. I'm like a politican without power or responsibility. A lot of people listen to me and take what I say very seriously. I'm vocal in my community, and I'm vocal internationaly. I'm one of those people that everyone likes (not because I'm fake, but because I'm as genuine as possible). Also, I'm humble. Heh. Seriously, though, Ghandi never used a weapon and he was one of the most important political figures of the past 100 years. I'm not equating myself with Ghandi, just following a good example.

The_Dunedan

Will,
Good to hear it; every voice helps.

Touching on your example of Ghandi, however; the only reason the British paid any attention to Ghandi is that they knew that, if they didn't, they'd have Nehru to deal with. And Nehru's people were certainly -not- pacifists, as the fighting which attended the partitioning of India showed. Non-violent protest only affects evil people when there is the understanding that, if non-violent means are ignored or repressed, violent means could potentially be employed. Non-violence works great...until the Gov't decides to simply crush you, ala Tienanmen Square. Once that line is crossed, only an overwhelmingly violent response on the part of the People can stop the Government's aggression; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But it's certainly better than simply waiting to be shot, which -never- works.

dksuddeth

Is THAT what you think the governments been doing for the last 75 years?
The government does NOT enforce the constitution, it's been finding ways to undermine it since the civil war. The constitution can only secure your rights as long as you're willing to fight to keep it in being. Otherwise it's just a damn piece of paper.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." — Mahatma Ghandi

Ghandi is also known for answering a question from a highschool girl about what she should do if someone was pointing a gun at her, he said that if someone is pointing a gun at you, it would make sense to use a gun also to defend yourself.

Will, how long do you think you will be able to run your 'big mouth' if the government, with guns, wants to silence you?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

You said that I consider the government a granter of rights. That's not true. I'm saying THE JOB of government is to enforece and protect the Constitution. You and I both know that not all elements of government do their job.
No one is perfect.
Until the day I die.

sasKuach

Well, somebody listened. I really doubt the points I ragged on are original to anyone on TFP, so I don't see the offense in this.

What some consider them changes nothing.

On the same token, how effective would a B-52 or nuke have been? It's widely known that airpower and wmd's can't conquer anything. Same for armor. You need guys on the ground with guns for that. A revolt or insurgency is a far different game than conquering a superpower.

I'm sorry about your friend. But you misunderstood me as denying the existence of gun violence. I'm saying it is blown out of proportion. The people I knew that died as a result of car accidents, fire, home/work accidents, and illness outnumber those that were shot by SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

Hell, more people die from falling (or drowning?) IN THEIR HOMES than from guns. However, I don't see any angry forum posts about those. This leads me to believe that the confiscation of guns is for a higher purpose than safety, which is the common reason... I fully support the war in Iraq and Afgahnistan, but what are US troops doing there? Disarming insurgents, that's what. That's the first step.

Willravel

Treating someone like shit is offensive.
K, they ARE extreemists. Not only that, but, as pointed out by Ch'i, these independant organizations advocate non-violence (people after my won heart) to incite political change.
Again, by 'bomber' I mean someone who plants explosives, not an aircraft that drops bombs. Sorry for the confusion.
I recognize that I can't stop violence from fists, knives, or baseball bats. I can't stop car accedents or plane crashes. We need knives and hands and baseball (even though it's boring) and cars and planes. Guns don't really have a duplistic purpous, besides maybe hunting, and who uses assault rifles to hunt? Most of us get our meat from the store, and they get it from killing domesticated cattle and poultry and pork and lamb and fish without the use of a gun. The reason for a gun is to injure or kill another human being, and that's not a good enough reason, in my mind, for them to exist. I live about an hour and some change south of Oakland, so I know that not all gun violence is 'blown out of proportion'. I know it's easy for pro gun people to assume that gun violence statistics are padded or exaggerated, but reporting a shooting is reporting a shooting. When I watch the news report on a shooting, they aren't making it up.
I'm not as mad about water violence because we need water to survive, so we can't just get rid of it. The same cannot be said of guns. Water gives life, and guns take life. As for the wars of aggression and the continuing follies of the lame duck administration under the rule of President Genocide W. Bush, that's for another thread. I'd be glad to explain why the troops are really in Iraq elsewhere.

I believe there are at least 11,000 gun deaths a year in the US. That's over 30 a day. How many Americans die each year from terrorism? If numbers are so important, why are we fighting terrorism with such vigor when in the past 6 years we've lost 3,000 people to terrorism and 66,000 to gun violence? That means that terrorists only kill 4.5% of Americans that guns kill.

dksuddeth

The reason for a gun is to stop an offensive threat by injuring or killing another human being, and that's a good enough reason, in my mind, for them to exist. I don't expect my 57 year old, 4', 11", 98 lb mother to use martial arts and fight off one attacker, let alone more. The same goes for myself. While I'm an average size man, there are particular reasons why I choose to carry a gun, or have one in my home, that make a gun better suited to defending myself or my family, than it would to 'put up my dukes and fight like a man'.

Your pacifism is admirable, but misguided, in my opinion, because you're misunderstanding the lesson of peace that Jesus tried to spread. If I were a more critical person, I'd tell you that you're disrespecting the gift that god gave you by refusing to use the force necessary to keep it.

Because gun violence didn't cause those deaths, violent criminals did. Just because they used a gun is irrelevant when you consider that there are as many, or more, crimes used with other weapons AND guns that don't result in deaths. The defensive uses of guns far exceeds the number of deaths that happen by criminal use of guns.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Well first, I hope your mom never has to be in a situation where she has to defend herself. How does she feel about tasers or mase? They don't have kickback that can cause you to miss your target if you have weak wrists, and they are very unlikely to kill anyone. They are effective as a deterrant, and are safer to carry. Also, I've never heard of a case of a child finding his father's mase and shooting himself dead.
I'm not convinced that Jesus was ever real, let alone a diety, so his lessons are more like fables to me than gospel. I do what I do and believe what I believe because it makes sense to me, personally, not because God told me to. God has his own stuff to deal with, if he exists, and shouldn't be bothered with whether I have a gun or not.

sasKuach

Yeah, let's not forget the thousands of lives that guns save each year. Sure guns are made for killing people, but that's necessary sometimes; sometimes moreso than a baseball bat or golf club. Bats and clubs really, truly have no purpose outside of sports. What I'm sure you, and most, anti-gun people are upset about is illegal use of guns. Forgive me for going Lewis Black here, but..... IT'S ALREADY FUCKING IILLEGAL TO KILL PEOPLE!!! So then why is every politician who is for gun control also against stricter punishment of gun crimes? Shouldn't we stop demonizing simple objects and focus on hanging criminals by their wieners?

Also, with advances in the nutritional sciences, forks and knives have become barbaric implements of yesteryear. On the other hand, nothing has yet made mankind peaceful, so guns still have a purpose for self defense. I'd find you that story of an 80 year-old gun store owner (ok fine, I'll give you that one, but any store owner could suffer the same) that drove off a car full of about 8 attackers with his AR-15 and several 30-round clips of ammo. Nobody was injured, he just turned their car into a colander. A single-use can of mace wouldn't have done jack shit. Sure, on average, you'll be fine with a pump shotgun to defend your crib, but some people are at more risk than others.

There is one elitist wacho I know that thinks that people who can't defend themselves are weak and shouldn't expect to survive. Never mind that this includes almost everybody who's female, younger than 15, or older than 60.

Willravel

How can you prove a gun saved your life? I mean you could say that it potentially save a life, but how could you prove it? Also, do you have any statistics (not including military or police) that cover how many lives that guns 'save' a year?
That's completly wrong, and that fundanemntal philosophical difference between you and I is where our argument lies. I'm responsible for my life and my life alone. I'm responsible for the safety of others, but never with their lives. In order to take someone else's life, you take responsibility for their life and that's wrong. It's like the worst and most fundanemtnal kind of theft. They are responsible for their lives.
Defend the safety of the weak. Don't kill. Those two commandments can coexist, and that's where I stand.

Ch'i

Marijuana is illegal, and I see dozens of people smoke it every day.
And you think having guns around helps that goal of peace?
I'm curious, (other than hunting) have you ever been involved in a situation wherein the only answer was the use of an automatic rifle?
Why do you assume that violence must be used to keep the gift your God gave you? Does it not sound like somewhat of a contradiction to you that violence must be used at any cost to preserve peace?

dksuddeth

The part that I bolded is completely and totally wrong. If I'm put in to a position where I have to take someones life before they can take mine, THEY take responsibility for their life, not me. THEY made a choice to assault or kill me.

USMC, 1984-1990. Yes, I've been in a situation where the only answer was an automatic rifle. I hope it never happens to me again, but if it does, I'd certainly like to have it as an option instead of having some elected representative make it illegal because my possession of an automatic weapon somehow affects interstate commerce.


I never said that violence must be used at ANY cost. I said that violence MUST be a viable option if you're left with no other choice to avoid death or serious bodily injury.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."