The writing is somewhat ambiguous but I take it to mean an armed militia exclusively, not an armed citizenry.
This was written in a time of war on American soil, people being armed was a necessity, it most certainly is not today. America has arguably the best trained and best equipped military in the world and geographically a land invasion is pretty much impossible. You no longer need guns, the redcoats are no longer coming.
IThis was written around the same time as the 2nd amendment, Its actually laughable how out of date the above quote is.
Once again the US has the best military in the world, what exactly is an AK or even grenade launcher let alone handgun going to do against an army of tanks, helicopters and drones except make you and your family a target?
Your military consists of American citizens, how many of your troops would be willing to fire on fellow citizens?
If it ever came to the Gov fighting the people I think they would pull out all the stops, even if you went to ground in the forests or mountains somewhere, they have satellites that can read the writing on a small coin with heat sensing capabilities. How long do you think you will last?
In this day and age the most successful form of rebellion is a peaceful one, look at Egypt or as a better example India, both of these countries achieved a change of government without violence, why can Americans not consider doing the same if it ever came to that?
Sorry but yes it is!!
Every country has murder, people with mental issues, criminals with guns and gun deaths yet no other country in the world has people going into schools, malls, cinemas etc every few months blasting away at innocent people. Yes massacres have happened in other places but once again not with anywhere near the frequency that they do in the US. The guns being used by these people arent home made, they were either purchased legally or stolen from people (usually parents) who did purchase them legally.
Someone mentioned suicide bombers as proof of this being untrue, suicide bombers are politically or ideologically motivated and usually are not citizens of the country they commit their act in.
These shootings are not politically or ideologically motivated and all so far all perpetrators have been American citizens
Just because something is a tradition or part of culture doesnt make it right.
How many of you think female circumcision is correct?
How many of you think honour killings are justified?
How many of you think training bears to dance by putting them on hot plates that burn their feet is right?
All these things are traditions or part of different cultures yet all are in most sensible peoples minds just sick. Just because something is part of your culture does not make it right. It could be argued that with the frequency of these shooting sprees that this is now part of your culture!!!
Every country has criminals with guns, it has been suggested if you really want a gun you can get one. This is true for criminals with resources to buy them and access to people who deal in them. I doubt very much that the majority of people who have committed these recent shootings fit into this category.
Most criminals have weapons to either protect their drug stash or turf, actually using them they know is not good for business. By far the majority of gun deaths are either crimes of passion or the work of mentally ill people, not drug dealers or bank robbers.
Also taking guns off the market takes away the ability of criminals to easily get guns.
This was posted in the other thread, somehow the person who posted felt this supported the argument for guns being legal
• 71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
• 64% had been convicted of a crime.
• Each had an average of 11 prior arrests.117,118
• 63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories).
119 Most gun violence is between criminals. This should be the public policy focus.
So most gun crimes not committed against good law abiding citizens therefore using gun crime statistics as a reason for wanting a gun for safety is bunk.
Im sure it makes you FEEL safer but its not the reality
In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers.
Guns and swords serve only 1 purpose, to kill!!! Im not sure if gun advocates realise how ridiculous they sound when they say ban cars or alcohol, to be honest I dont even feel those comments are worth addressing, knives however are worth talking about.
As weve seen with the chinese incident people who are unbalanced and want to hurt people will find a way to do so but thats be callous for a second and look at the figures
Gunman walks into school and opens fire= 27 dead 20 injured knife weilder walks into school and start slashing and stabbing= 0 dead 20 injured
If someone opens fire with a gun in a crowded place, even 100 feet away if your in his line of sight your a target, 3 teachers tried to rush the gunman in the latest tragedy and all were shot down.
Someone walks into a mall and stabs someone, everyone scatters and to get to the next victim they need to chase them down, if you can get hold of a chair, pole, piece of wood or even a handbag you have a fighting chance of being able to disarm him. Hell even with just your hands you can hold him up till other people are able to help you overpower them.
Yes but a person with a gun can kill alot more people than a person without. Guns make killing easy and impersonal, you can stand across a room pull out a gun and BANG someones dead.
As pointed out, with a knife, bat, pole you need to get within striking distance thereby giving the person a chance to either run or defend themselves.
As many of you like to quote Washington banned guns... BUT comparing the 10 years before the gun ban and the 10 years after the only statistically significant change to any crime figures showed gun deaths were down!!!!!!! There was only 1 year after the ban were gun deaths were equal to even the lowest year prior to the ban. Banning guns in Washington saved an estimated 47 lives
Everyone the world over worries about their families safety and security but most of us do just fine without a gun. The reason most of you have put forward is that criminals have guns so you need them. As addressed above the more guns in circulation the easier it is for the bad people to get them, it is a self defeating argument.
I agree these people doing the shootings are slipping through the cracks but once again these crazy people have access to guns way to easily. If they could only get access to knives then we would see headlines that read 20 injured instead of 27 killed
Despite figures saying gun crime was up, death by guns remained largely static and within acceptable statistical variation.
When gun crime is mentioned it is mainly reffering to armed robbery, Even if you have a gun on you if someone pulls a gun on you and demands your wallet, phone etc etc would you really risk your life trying to pull it out? No possesions are worth dying for!!!!
And once again most gun crime even in the UK is commited by criminals against other criminals, not law abiding citizens
So the law is pretty much the same as other places in the US that allow gun ownership, if you dont want a gun get one, if not, dont.
I find it unbelievable people who use this place as evidence for how good gun ownership is always miss this point
I can appreciate this and to me its the only acceptable reason for wanting a gun. Of the estimated 100 Million gun owners in the US I wonder how many are hunters? Ill take a stab and say bugger all (that means very few)
Plus when hunting for sport (I doubt many of these hunters are starving) wouldnt it be more sporting to use a bow and arrow? A rifle is enough for hunting, no need for handguns or semi autos
When I heard about "gun free zones" I assumed it meant states or districts,counties etc etc. It actually refers to school zones and the like. I doubt very much the thinking of these people going into schools, malls and other GFZ is that no one will have guns, these are places with a large amount of people in a small place. Since most of these people plan on dying anyway I seriously doubt they are concerned about whether anyone else has guns and may fire on them
True but statistically its right up there
In number of total gun deaths the US is fourth
# 1 South Africa: 31,918
# 2 Colombia: 21,898
# 3 Thailand: 20,032
# 4 United States: 9,369
when adjusted to a per capita rate the US is 12th with 9 gun deaths a year per 100,000 people.
Now on either of these figures the USA is by far and away the leader when compared to other western countries.
Either way the fact that gun advocates quote that the US isnt the worst really says something about the way they think.
Most of these other countries are either experiencing civil war or serious drug wars. The US suffers from neither of these issues
This is what it basically comes down to, the gun is the adult equivalent of a teddy bear. It makes you feel all warm and snugly. They can strrp away your other freedoms but as long as you have guns you dont care.
So they are the arguments I normally see given by gun advocates as reasons for why guns shouldnt face tougher restrictions or bans. To summarise my position I dont believe guns everywhere is justified and the reason people want guns is because everyone else has guns and you dont feel safe without one. I personally believe they should be banned, guns already in circulation should stay there but no more to be sold. Start a buyback scheme so that as people no longer feel they need their firearms they can be turned in therefore taking them out of circulation.Anyone caught with a gun without the valid permits should face a mandatory jail term, since if they were illegal anyone caught with one would be upto no good anyway I dont see this as an issue.
I enjoy this forum because it forces me to challenges my beliefs and actually think about what I hold to be true, I encourage and look forward to anyone who doesnt agree with any of the above to CIVILY tell me how and why I am wrong.
Ok Im done...... Flame away
Originally posted by conspiracytheoristIAM
Great thread, S&F for you ! Why is it that so many of the anti-gun posts and threads come from people not even from the U.S. ?
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by LightCraft
Good post S&F..... Constitutionally speaking, the militia and the citizenry are synonymous. they are one in the same, because the militia was(is) made up of ALL able bodied men (I forget the age range) but it's something like 18 - 55. As you know, the primary purpose for the 2nd amendment is to defend a member state and the citizens therein against an out of control, tyrannical federal government. Therefore the 2nd amendment is just as important now as it ever has been considering the direction our federal government is going. As far as "assault weapons" are concerned, as long as those in power have them, so will I. As long as those who have the power and resolve to oppress me, I will be equally as armed as they are. Period. This was part of the original thinking behind the 2nd amendment. Our system was designed to operate behind a system of checks and balances, and being equzlly armed as those who have the power is one of those checks and balances.
The 2nd amendment HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING. Think about it... back then, people hunted for their food. It was the ONLY way to survive and feed one's family. There were no grocery stores. Because hunting was a common and everyday activity, why in the world would the founders feel it necessary to guarantee the right to hunt in a bill of rights whose power is derived from God? They didn't. Therefore, the primary purpose for the 2nd amendment is as I stated above.
Originally posted by RN311
Star and flag for you! great points, and FACTS lol not opinions I doubt the OP of the other thread will come here to try and counter any of your points but great thread!
Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
reply to post by LightCraft
As I have previously stated, the only way that any gun ban would ever work is if 100% of the population is on board and that includes all governments. I certainly don't see that ever happening. Banning guns or outright repealing the 2nd amendment isn't something to be taken lightly, because 15 years down the road, "maybe we shouldn't have banned guns" isn't a phrase I want to hear. Study history people. Or we will be doomed to relive it.
Originally posted by merkins
I'm a Brit and mark me down as pro US gun ownership. In fact I could even see an argument for firearms lessons/training in schools. Get 'em early and teach 'em right. I completely disagree with the OP from the other thread. For me it's about human rights.
Many British and Commonwealth country citizens that are anti US gun just don't get it. One of the reasons USA was born was out of a desire for freedom to live your life as you see fit without any unnecessary governmental interference. Government shouldn't be telling people how to live. People should be telling govrnment how to be and ensuring (by the gun if necessary) that government is as small as possible. Defence of borders, protection of human rights, a just legal system, and protecting the people from corporate power are all government needs to be involved in.
The desire to own guns should be all that is needed. All the other valid reasons for gun ownership are secondary in my opinion. If you want to own a gun it should be your business and yours alone. Provided your gun ownership and use doesn't infringe other peoples rights it's none of their business. If you use it illegally then you should face the consequences.
Gun prohibition is a kind of pre-crime/thought police action, plane and simple.
We Brits and commonwealth countries mostly simply don't have that mindset. We've had too many hundreds of years of being subjects not free citizens. We are the people who stayed behind and put up with the atrocities of The British Empire when the founding fathers and immigrants fled the tyranny to the new world.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in article 3 that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
The scholarly paper linked below points out that gun confiscation leads to infringements of civil rights.
Originally posted by FissionSurplus
Well, the person who wrote the thread that the OP is debating doesn't live out here in No Man's Land.
We have a shotgun (for closer shooting), and a small caliber rifle (for things farther away).
Our closest neighbor is over a mile away. We are alone and basically defenseless, except for our guns. If somebody were to drive off the main highway onto our caliche road and decide to rob us, even if we called 9-1-1, it would take probably close to 20 minutes to get at least one sheriff's deputy out here. Therefore, our only defense is our shotgun.
None of the farmhouses out here in Texas gets ripped off, and that's because everybody knows that every farmer and rancher is armed. You wanna get your butt full of buckshot, try and rob one of these isolated houses.
We can only rely on ourselves for protection, and that's fine by us. We're keeping our guns, thank you very much. It's what's in the can of whoop ass when it opens.