Before we talk about gun control

a reply to: FyreByrd


I appreciate the reply and sources, and also their interpretation of the second. You are right about the militia aspect as well, but I believe it also defined an organized vs. unorganized militia. Isn't it something like all citizens within a certain age range?

Slavery and other injustices are totally unacceptable, but do not form the basis of our support for the second today. I believe the second allows all Americans to defend their Constitutional rights and natural right to self defense. I also do not believe there is any effective means to removing the extremely large number of firearms from the country. It would likely result in a massive industry going underground, and would do little to really prevent dangerous people from acquiring firearms. They would still have access to other weapons of crime and terror (knives, explosives, acids, other nasty things) which would put a lot of good people at risk.

It is important to remember that there are many ways to carry out a deadly attack, but firearms are the only effective tool for defeating a lethal threat. Less lethal tools such as Tasers, OC spray and stun guns have proven ineffective in many cases, and even experienced police officers have been killed for grabbing a less lethal deterrent in a deadly force encounter.

If there were some way to remove all firearms from Earth, there would still be evil people carrying out all kinds of atrocities with deadly weapons. Law abiding citizens would be at a great disadvantage when confronted with a threat to their lives.

Can I ask if you believe individuals have a right to defend their lives against a deadly threat?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: rockintitz

Have you ever needed to use a gun you carry while out in public to defend yourself?

I haven't yet and I pray I never have to.It is a serious responsibility in owning and carrying
a gun.I don't take this lightly either and have stopped carrying for a while.I have been too
busy and haven't been to the shooting range for some time now.When I get some more time
to target shoot,I'll be carrying again.

a reply to: JBurns

Thank you for your reasonable reply.

To begin with - I do believe that we have a right to defend ourselves and our families from a deadly threat. However, in most cases I believe the use of firearms may not be the most effective means. More on this in a bit.

As to the Second amendment - in its entirety says:

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.

So the other issues you speak of are not in the domain of the Original Document and hence only personal commentary/belief.

If you wish - here is a link to an article at The Nation that outlines the historical 'legal' wrangling about the meaning and interpretation of the second amendment:

www.thenation.com...

It says in part - really try to read the whole thing - it points out how the current Supreme Court is acting in an "activist" manner - which goes agains their Originalist Claims.

To grasp the audacity of what Scalia & Co. pulled off, turn to the Second Amendment’s text:

“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.”

To find in that wording an individual right to possess a firearm untethered to any militia purpose, the majority performed an epic feat of jurisprudential magic:

It made the pesky initial clause about the necessity of a “well regulated Militia” disappear. Poof! Gone.

Scalia treated the clause as merely “prefatory” and having no real operative effect—a view at odds with history, the fundamental rules of constitutional interpretation, and the settled legal consensus for many decades.

As to the slave argument. I have to ask - are we talking about 'original intent' or today?

The Founders were scholars of classical history, and they knew that history teaches that when given too much power, armies, repeatedly and throughout history, would overthrow democracy and put in place a military dictatorship. There's even a phrase to describe it: a military coup.

As James Madison told the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787,

“A standing military force… will not long be safe companions to liberty.

The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

With this situation in mind, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, which says that, “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.”

Here is the link to this article by Thom Hartmann and other references on the subject. The above article appeared at the progressive Alternet. Thom Hartmann does impeccable research and referencing on a number of topics. As you will see at his website - he lists his sources so that you can read them for yourself. On air and off - he always has backup.

www.thomhartmann.com...

To continue from the article titled: "So Few Americans Understand What the Second Amendment Is Really About—or Its Dark History" about the slave militia compromise....

And after the Constitution was written, southern slave-owners, led by Patrick Henry (Virginia's biggest slave owner) started freaking out that their slaves could be constitutionally freed and then drafted by the federal government, which was given the power under Article 1, Section 8 to raise a national militia.

The slave-owners worried that this national militia would eventually be used by Northern anti-slavery types to destroy the slave patrols and maybe even the institution of slavery itself. So what did those slave-owners do?

They had the Founders write into the Second Amendment specific protections for slave patrols.

Yes - people of ill-will (and buddies) will try to use force to may others do their bidding in one way or another but that argument is hollow in the arena of common sense firearm control measures.

You can kill with a knife, hammer, knitting needle, etc... true - but not in mass and in such a narrow timeframe.

A car can kill, by intent or accident (we saw the horrific results of intent in Charlottesville) but the 'state' requires permanent tracking of each vehicle from manufacture to destruction. The state also requires owners to prove proficiency to use a vehicle on a recurring basis and it requires both vehicle and driver to be insured to cover any damaged caused.

All are reasonable steps to ensure safe usage of a vehicle or perhaps, a firearm. (I'd like to see a continuing education element in both cases.)

Then there is the, with all due respect, and I'm the daughter of a career Army officer. In fact, my Dad was the weapons platoon officer of his company (82nd, 325 GIR) in WWII, I offer the following:

Good Guys with Guns Myth

www.acslaw.org...

Even with the rapid response of police, half of all incidents end before the police arrive.

In two-thirds of those cases, the shooter him or herself stops the attack by either leaving the scene or committing suicide.

In the remaining cases, potential victims have subdued the shooter.

Notably, in only three cases were guns used against the attackers to end the incident, and in two of those cases the person shooting was an off-duty police officer.

It seems a good guy with a gun isn’t the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun.

Not only is the “good guys with guns” trope untrue, it’s dangerous.

The idea that guns in the hands of civilians in active shooter situations will increase public safety strains credulity.

In Wednesday’s shooting, the good guys were trained Capitol Police officers serving as the security detail for Rep. Scalise.

Research suggests that, on average, police officers who discharge their firearms hit their intended target about 15 to 25 percent of the time.

For civilians untrained and untested in high stress situations—even those who would consider themselves good marksmen—the hit percentage is bound to be much lower.

Arming more civilians, particularly those whose previous experience and training with firearms is limited, and expecting them to engage active shooters only adds another volatile variable to an already fraught situation.

Again thank you for your patience and reason.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Thank you for the informative reply and link, I found Ms. Samuels' analysis to be concise and informative even if I didn't agree 100%. For the most part, I believe she was spot on however in saying that it was not an originalist interpretation. Whether it was simply to form an opinion that reflected more modern times (living document) or their reasons were politically motivation I cannot say for certain. I do agree that the second was written in reference to defense of the State, but given the founders' position on standing military forces under state control I believe it intended to delegate that power directly to the people.

Admittedly, I did not realize the relationship this issue had to slavery in the past. I would like emphasize that my firearms would be aimed from the "side" opposing slavery or forced servitude of any human being. I would also like to offer that possession of firearms can help to ensure citizens never again become slaves (to government or even criminals).

I can't speak for everyone who owns a firearm, but in my personal opinion the measures you suggested do not appear extreme or "infringing." As long as these programs/requirements were achievable by those who could pass its requirements (ie: not being denied due to low income, physical disability, etc) I think it would be of benefit. I am all for anything that improves safety (and accountability) while also providing much needed/sought after training.

There would of course be issues with the firearms already in circulation, but there could be incentive programs to get these in the same system or simply grandfather them in (or make them non-transferable until entry into system)

I am unsure if you follow a lot of these types of posts here, but another member made this post recently: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The post has a video in it, showing several lawmakers (unsure whether city/state/federal) discussing gun "confiscation" while they left their mic on accidentally. Whereas two reasonable people like You & I can agree to measures we both see as "common sense" and practical to implement, hearing/reading/seeing people calling for total confiscation and disarmament really shuts a lot of other reasonable people down.

I do believe that these measures could be beneficial, but I do believe that we need a well defined consensus on where we as a whole stand. I think those with extreme views (on either side) hamper efforts by the majority of reasonable folks out there. I remember when the GCA was passed, I read 2-3 posts on BBS's threatening near revolution. I think those types of over-reactions are also unhelpful, although I have had them myself admittedly.

I think when we perceive others to be "coming after" something we hold important, whether that is firearm rights, self defense rights or even a cherished hobby, the natural reaction is to go on the defensive. I believe my reactions are getting better, and I am to the point where I can discuss regulations with an open mind and true intentions.

Thanks again, and enjoying the discussion. JB

a reply to: JBurns

I will reply - I did spend an hour compiling one when my internetttook a dump as I tried to post it. I have to start over and am not up to it at the moment.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I am sorry to hear that! I have actually had this happen to me several times (at another forum I browse) and have taken to copy/pasting everything before submitting a longish post

Thank you for your time in replying and continuing this conversation

a reply to: JBurns

Thank you for your patience ....

I think the amendment itself clearly states that the ‘state’ is the abitur not the individual- it only speaks of groups – militia and state. The original wording of the amendment was ‘country’ not ‘state’ – it was changed to ‘state’ prior to ratification to appease the southern states.

I agree that most responsible weapons owners would agree to the simple steps most people want – there was a time that the NRA itself promoted such responsible gun ownership. Unfortunately, the NRA appears to be little more than a ‘mouthpiece’ for weapons manufacturers in more recent times.

There are classes of people who, arguably, should be denied access to firearms. Felons are already denied that ‘right’. I would add the mentally disabled (perhaps even just diagnosed – though that goes too far for even me), as well as those who do not have training in safe weapons handling and are unwilling to renew that education from time to time. I do believe that liability should be required as well. (lasvegassun.com...).

Personally, the link to the post www.abovetopsecret.com... doesn’t seem right to me at all. Even I can figure out that the attached audio could be easily edited to say anything the ‘poster’ wanted. I don’t know who the YouTube poster is but I definitively wouldn’t consider it reliable.. I have never actually heard anyone (and I certainly don’t know everyone) speak about confiscating guns – or taking away peoples hunting or self-defensive weapons. I’ve never considered it and I’m about as close to a complete pacifist as you are likely to find. But I am also not an authoritarian.

And I do believe you are spot on with:

I think when we perceive others to be "coming after" something we hold important, whether that is firearm rights, self defense rights or even a cherished hobby, the natural reaction is to go on the defensive. I believe my reactions are getting better, and I am to the point where I can discuss regulations with an open mind and true intentions.

I think you point out the importance of ‘fear’ and fear brings up very real differences in conservative and progressive thinking. The, for simplicity sake, Red, tend to fear immediate things whereas the Blue tend to fear more long term issues.

For example, in a study published in January, a team led by psychologist Michael Dodd and political scientist John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives' eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrement—suggesting that conservatives are more attuned than liberals to assessing potential threats.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Physiological Differences
Importantly, one study of 90 healthy volunteers, showed biological differences include an enlarged anterior cingulate cortex in liberals and an increased right amygdala size in conservatives.
With the above highlighted, takeaways of a 2011 study specifically include:
• Political liberalism and conservatism were correlated with brain structure
• Liberalism was associated with the gray matter volume of the anterior cingulate cortex
• Conservatism was associated with an increased right amygdala size
• Results offer possible accounts for cognitive styles of liberals and conservatives

factmyth.com...

Here is a well-balanced TED talk on the subject:

a reply to: FyreByrd

I wanted to imbed the TED talk but couldn't figure it out ... let me know if you have any problem with the link. You will find in enjoyable.

a reply to: FyreByrd

a reply to: JBurns

You two are to be commended for your polite repartee. Many of us, and I surely include myself in that, could learn from it.

Well done!!

a reply to: FyreByrd

Just noticed that the TED talk link didn't make it into my post ... here it is:

www.ted.com...-179088

Thank you seagull! Always appreciate a good compliment from a friend.

And thanks to you too FyreByrd, I am currently working on my reply. I do agree that the audio/video is spurious at best, considering there are no details known for sure and anyone can make a sound bytw.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

The families of 58 people ask, where were you in Las Vegas? Cuz there was someone there with LOTS of guns who wished harm on LOTS of people.

So explain to those families why left-wingers have been calling for the death of "Trump supporters", etc. We have got left-wing reporters, and prominent idiots in the left calling for violence and even the murder of "Trump supporters" and even white people in general.

The LV concert was attended by a majority conservative with many "Trump supporters".

We even have had members in these same forums state things like "whatever comes to Trump supporters they deserve it", or worse statements...

But of course, you won't put the blame on the mentality from many in the left, not only in the U.S., which has been increasing that "violence against conservatives and Trump supporters is ok"...

BTW, this obvious left-wing murderer had from 17-23 long rifles with him in the hotel... Why did he have so many? He might have used 4 or so, so why have 17-23 long rifles with him in the hotel?...

No one, and I mean no one could have used 17-23 long rifles in that time frame, and we don't hear in the videos that have been posted him using so many rifles.

Not only that, in the last 12 months he had bought 33 long rifles, so it is obvious he was planning for this for the past 12 months or so, since around the time when Trump and Clinton were the main candidates.

The only obvious answer is that whether he was framed, or he himself did it, the goal was to murder as many "conservatives and possible Trump supporters" as possible, and to have many types of long rifles in the crime scene which the left would use to make renewed calls to ban semi-automatic long rifles.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: rockintitz

The families of 58 people ask, where were you in Las Vegas? Cuz there was someone there with LOTS of guns who wished harm on LOTS of people.

if them 58 people would have been armed they might have made a deference...

a reply to: FyreByrd

There are many, mostly gun-grabbers, who do want to claim that the second amendment only pertains to "a well regulated militia". But here is the thing. The second amendment has two parts, and on the second part it clearly states the right of the people.

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.
...

Somehow in the argument which proclaims the second only pertains to "a well regulated militia" the obvious statement that refers about the people's right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed seems to go poof, as if by magic the mention that this is a right of the people disappears in the arguments of those who want gun control.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
The second amendment has two parts, and on the second part it clearly states the right of the people.

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.
...

Somehow in the argument which proclaims the second only pertains to "a well regulated militia" the obvious statement that refers about the people's right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed seems to go poof, as if by magic the mention that this is a right of the people disappears in the arguments of those who want gun control.

The amendment speaks of 'right' of 'the people' plural - not singular or individual. And that right of 'the people' only in the context of another plural noun 'militia' clearly modified by 'well-regulated'.

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: rockintitz

The families of 58 people ask, where were you in Las Vegas? Cuz there was someone there with LOTS of guns who wished harm on LOTS of people.

if them 58 people would have been armed they might have made a deference...

Just how 'could' they have make a difference if they had all been armed?

Just how would allowing 22,000, more or less drunken or drugged festival goers to be armed with pistols? rifles? have saved lives. How would these victims known who was the bad guy(s)?

I just don't see how it would be possible, even for the best trained and experienced, person to 'stop' a well armed shooter 400 feet away, 30 some stories up, from within a panicked mob even if the shooter could be accurately located in such conditions to begin with. That's superhero fantasy stuff.

I think if you stop to think about it - having armed people in the crowd could have only made the death toll and the injury count higher and contributed to more 'panic' related injuries.

I have yet to hear any break down of injury causes and will be interested to learn the numbers.

originally posted by: mamabeth

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: rockintitz

Have you ever needed to use a gun you carry while out in public to defend yourself?

I haven't yet and I pray I never have to.It is a serious responsibility in owning and carrying
a gun.I don't take this lightly either and have stopped carrying for a while.I have been too
busy and haven't been to the shooting range for some time now.When I get some more time
to target shoot,I'll be carrying again.

That's is good you haven't had to, I'm Betting the OP has never needed to use his gun in self defense either.