An Open Letter to Lovers of the Gun

reply to post by guohua


But the fact remains that 15 - 20 year-olds are in fact still children developmentally. We don't call them that - we call them adolescents and young adults, but cognitively the brain isn't truly mature until 25 or so.

reply to post by NavyDoc


And, having to have a say, but ignoring the inconsistancy of the argument, you are saying what? Your opinion? Logic, reason, anything?


It's called pivoting and used as a defensive when their is no defense.

LurkingRelentlessly
im confused.

are these studies referring to irresponsible owners or autonomous sentient firearms?

LOL - that's great. Frankly I'm not sure any longer after reading all the posts and having to struggle to not chase the irrelevant tangents.

The studies just refer to statsitical correlation that guns in the home equate to a greater change of harm to a household member by a firearm then in homes without them.

Very simple, very direct, validated over and over.

No statement of pro or anti gun.

My error was in posting an article about the increase in school shootings - also verifiable fact - but the author of that article and me despair over that fact.

I presented two facts, both related to firearms and it was one two many for rational discussion.

I wish I had the time to chart the responses and tangents, it would make an interesting informal study.

What I see, and will be villified for seeing, is that any mention of gun violence in US society elicits emotional reactions, ego defense mechinisms, and personal attacks without cause.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Calling a study flawed without any reasons or examples of said flaws just because you don't like the results is irrational and childish. Or maybe just plain lazy thinking.

FyreByrd
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

And, having to have a say, but ignoring the inconsistancy of the argument, you are saying what? Your opinion? Logic, reason, anything?


It's called pivoting and used as a defensive when their is no defense.

edit on 28-1-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

Yeah. You just made no sense whatsoever. His position is that registration on firearms is not an infringement on the right to own firearms. I ask a simple question as to the consistency of this belief--is governmental registration of a typewriter (or any devices used to promulgate speech) an infringement on the right to speak? If one accepts registration of once device pertaining to a right as not an infringement of a right, then one must also accept that registration of other devices pertaining to other rights as not infringement, in order to be consistent.

FyreByrd
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Calling a study flawed without any reasons or examples of said flaws just because you don't like the results is irrational and childish. Or maybe just plain lazy thinking.

Examples of why the study was flawed have been posted in this thread, or did you not read the entire thread? Just because you don't like to put logical and reasonable methods to a study, does not make the study valid. Your rational acceptance of an opinion piece (the actual study was not even cited until someone actually cited the study to point out its flaws) without critical thinking is irrational and childish.

FyreByrd

LurkingRelentlessly
im confused.

are these studies referring to irresponsible owners or autonomous sentient firearms?

LOL - that's great. Frankly I'm not sure any longer after reading all the posts and having to struggle to not chase the irrelevant tangents.

The studies just refer to statsitical correlation that guns in the home equate to a greater change of harm to a household member by a firearm then in homes without them.

Very simple, very direct, validated over and over.

No statement of pro or anti gun.

My error was in posting an article about the increase in school shootings - also verifiable fact - but the author of that article and me despair over that fact.

I presented two facts, both related to firearms and it was one two many for rational discussion.

I wish I had the time to chart the responses and tangents, it would make an interesting informal study.

What I see, and will be villified for seeing, is that any mention of gun violence in US society elicits emotional reactions, ego defense mechinisms, and personal attacks without cause.

Again. Correlation does not equal causation. Look up the difference.

LOL. You bitch about emotion and personal attacks after calling people irrational and childish? Hypocrite much?

FyreByrd
reply to post by guohua

 

But the fact remains that 15 - 20 year-olds are in fact still children developmentally. We don't call them that - we call them adolescents and young adults, but cognitively the brain isn't truly mature until 25 or so.

And to call an 18 year old criminal a "child victim" is moronic. A 17 year old hood would cut your throat just as easily as a 27 year old hood. It is intellectually dishonest to paint criminals under the age of 25 "children" and "victims" of their own criminal activity.

macman

BugOut


I have said it over and over but I will say it again. America suffers from a mental health crisis that is out of control. Normal sane people do not go to a mall or school and kill people with a bat, knife or even a gun. I am not going to change anyone's mind and no one is going to change my mind. Move on......

And the Anti-Gun rights crown want to remove the peoples ability to defend themselves when these things occur.

I, like every other person that owns a gun, respect the rights of others to not be armed and to be a willing victim.

But, the respect is not reciprocated. So much for tolerance.

You words "...to be a willing victim" convict you. You are not showing either respect or tolerance.

butcherguy
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Shall not be infringed. You like simple law so much....those 4 words are pretty darned simple.

It has always astounded me how the anti-gun people can read so much into the Second Amendment.... those four words, staring them in the face, don't seem to mean anything to them though.

And that those four words are all that extreme gun rightists (or gun lovers perhaps) can see. It's really not that simple.

Who's rights are more important? Mine or yours? Are you seeking freedom to do as you wish or freedom from something.

Here's a quick definition of "infringe"

in•fringe (ĭn-frĭnjˈ) ▶
v. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
v. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

Does the right to bear arms outweight the right to life, liberty, and happiness that the constitution lays out as the supreme right of citizen.

It really isn't a simple question and making it sound so is unreasoning.

FyreByrd

macman

BugOut


I have said it over and over but I will say it again. America suffers from a mental health crisis that is out of control. Normal sane people do not go to a mall or school and kill people with a bat, knife or even a gun. I am not going to change anyone's mind and no one is going to change my mind. Move on......

And the Anti-Gun rights crown want to remove the peoples ability to defend themselves when these things occur.

I, like every other person that owns a gun, respect the rights of others to not be armed and to be a willing victim.

But, the respect is not reciprocated. So much for tolerance.

You words "...to be a willing victim" convict you. You are not showing either respect or tolerance.

And you've shown neither so far. "Tolerance" is a one sided, hypocritical word used by those anything but tolerant.

His point is valid. How else describe someone who will willfully denies themselves the tools to defend themselves?

FyreByrd

butcherguy
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Shall not be infringed. You like simple law so much....those 4 words are pretty darned simple.

It has always astounded me how the anti-gun people can read so much into the Second Amendment.... those four words, staring them in the face, don't seem to mean anything to them though.

And that those four words are all that extreme gun rightists (or gun lovers perhaps) can see. It's really not that simple.

Who's rights are more important? Mine or yours? Are you seeking freedom to do as you wish or freedom from something.

Here's a quick definition of "infringe"

in•fringe (ĭn-frĭnjˈ) ▶
v. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
v. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

Does the right to bear arms outweight the right to life, liberty, and happiness that the constitution lays out as the supreme right of citizen.

It really isn't a simple question and making it sound so is unreasoning.

It is a simple question and making it more than such is unreasoning. How does his simply owning a firearm infringe upon your rights in any way? I'd wager that you are surrounded by firearm owners and don't even know who owns one, or several, and their ownership of same affects you and your rights not at all.

thesaneone
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

We all know that words can lead to fights that can end with someone getting beaten to death with someones hands so should we change the 1st.a? Would you be fine with that?

what about screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre? This is completely irrelevant to the OP and so reactionary as to be a case study (I'll let you decide on what).

FyreByrd
Who's rights are more important? Mine or yours?

The answer is that neither your rights nor those of gun owners are more important. We're all equal under the law, as are our freedoms to exercise our rights, including those generally attributed to the 2nd Amendment.

The only time this is not true is at the point where one person's rights begin to infringe upon someone else's. Before you latch onto that, though, remember that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are guilty of nothing, and therefore, are not infringing upon anyone's rights by practicing their own. This goes back to what I said much earlier in this thread: there's no justification to punish those people, and it accomplishes absolutely nothing because they're not the ones causing problems.

FyreByrd

thesaneone
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

We all know that words can lead to fights that can end with someone getting beaten to death with someones hands so should we change the 1st.a? Would you be fine with that?

what about screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre? This is completely irrelevant to the OP and so reactionary as to be a case study (I'll let you decide on what).

Ah, yes, that old saw.

First of all, it is perfectly legal to scream fire in a theater if, in fact, there is a fire in the theater.

Secondly, no one is gagged before they go into a theater just because they might scream fire. They are left with their vocalizations intact until they actually say something that may harm their fellow man.

This may end up being a rather long post. I haven't read all of the pages of discussion, probably 20 something by the time I finish, but I'm pretty sure the talking points are the same as usual for a discussion on firearms, the 2nd amendment, and crime. I'm a strong proponent of the 2nd amendment, as many on these boards already know. There are a large variety of reasons for this, some personal, some not, but when it boils down to the fundamental reason why I am a 2nd amendment supporter is because it is right, as in correct. Over the last 5 years I have learned that to deny an individual the right to keep and bear arms is, at the bottom of it all, wrong. There is no subjectivity about it, and I will explain in as much detail as I can as to why. It really is a question of correct and incorrect. I will go over definitions, both legal and otherwise, statistics, demographics, and purpose. The information in each section points clearly to the conclusion that having private ownership and possession of firearms as a fundamental right and intrinsic part of society is the correct decision in the maintenance of not only a successful and free society, but a systemically resilient one as well.


Definitions:

1. The 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
- The most common misrepresentation of the 2nd amendment that I see as a major talking point of people who propose infringement of the 2nd amendment is the text of the 2nd amendment itself. People refer to the word "regulated" to mean a piece of legislation, some form of oversight, some kind of sanction, or some kind of imposition by the federal government to control the right to keep and bear arms. Today the term regulate means to control, and regulations in industry are just that, government controls. However, the term "well regulated" had a considerably different meaning when it was written into the bill of rights, and had this meaning from the mid 1700s all the way up to the 1920s. It is common in literature and administrative records of all kinds in this period of time. The term "well regulated" means "to be of proper or good working order" for whatever the subject is. A person with a well regulated mind was said to be of rational thought and sound judgement, a well regulated watch kept accurate time. A well regulated machine worked reliably and efficiently. A well regulated militia means a military unit comprised of civilians that is well versed in the basics of war, drill, marksmanship, tactics, etc. www.constitution.org...

2. Assault Weapon: A rifle that resembles a military firearm in form if not function.
- This term didn't exist in the English lexicon, or in legalese (an actual separate language from English) until the late 80s. It had been tossed around form time to time by, you guessed it, politicians in the mid 80s, but was basically a buzzword with no definition until 1994. This term has remained that, a buzzword. it's meaning varies depending on who is saying it, and where, and often is used in place of a more accurate descriptor by the ignorant to conjure up images in the audience's imagination. An assault weapon may be legal or illegal, and it is mostly applied incorrectly. Assault weapons differ very little from most recreational weapons beyond the way they look. en.wikipedia.org... shows just how messy the term is.

3. Arms: weapons, ammunition, armaments.
- Arms, covering the above three includes everything from frying pans to shotguns, beer bottles, rifles, spoons, handguns, pencils, rocks, crossbows, spears, swords, boots, or any noun that is a man portable personal weapon that one uses to defend themselves with lethal or non lethal force. If you can use it as a weapon, you guessed it, it's probably an arm. So why the focus on firearms?

4. Ordnance: Mounted weapons, artillery, exceptionally destructive weapons.
- Arms are not Ordnance (not to be confused with Ordinance with an 'I' meaning law). A Nuclear weapon is not an arm. A tank cannon is not an arm. high explosive is not an arm, a chemical weapon is not an arm. They, for the most part, are considered ordnance. There was then, just as there is now, a distinct and recognized difference between arms and ordnance. Ordnance is of an unusually destructive nature, may be crew served, can't be carried by an individual or can't be used as a personal weapon. Guns of a certain caliber or greater, 12.7mm or 1/2 inch, that don't have a sporting purpose are also considered cannon and therefore ordnance. I see the argument from anti-bill-of-rights people along the lines of "if you think firearms should be unrestricted, then do you think everyone should have access to nuclear weapons?". This question and perspective is based on pure ignorance. It is an extreme hypothetical that an educated individual would never ask and never answer.

5. NFA: National Firearms Act
- In 1934 at the height of the great depression in the US along with prohibition of alcohol, created an environment perfect for violent crime. Violent crime was especially bad. So bad, in fact, that congress passed the NFA (national firearms act) in that year. This categorized certain weapons that fell into the gray area between Ordnance and Arms into new categories. Weapons belonging to these categories are required to be registered, require an extensive background check conducted by the FBI and ATF which can take up to 6 months, and a 200 dollar tax for any and all sales/transfers. Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, Any Other Weapons, Short Barrel Shotgun, Sort Barrel Rifle, and suppressors (silencers for those not in the know) are the new categories. en.wikipedia.org... is a fairly accurate source.

6. Machine Guns: Any weapon that fires more than one shot for a single depression of the trigger
- Assault rifles are machine guns. Assault weapons (ugh, I hate that term) are not. So if you see someone refer to an AR-15 as an assault rifle, you know they are wrong as an AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon, and depending on the state and features on the rifle, may or may not be an assault weapon.

7. Destructive Device: Any weapon that counts as an arm as well as ordnance at the same time.
-Some shotguns are classified as destructive devices as well as man portable grenade launchers and rocket launchers due to their caliber or explosive nature.

8. Any other weapon: Firearms that don't fit into any other category


9. SBR & SBS: Short barreled shotgun has a barrel less than 18" in length and a total length less than 26". Short barrel rifle is a rifle with a barrel less than 16" in length and a total length less than 26".
-The recent "ghost gun" slop job of a press conference in California was an SBR.


10. FOPA: Firearm Owners Protection Act
- Makes the sale of newly manufactured machine guns to civilians illegal after 1986. All legally owned machine guns in the US in civilian hands were made before 1986. You cannot purchase one that was made yesterday legally. The only way newly manufactured machine guns exist in private hands are at the hands of importers or class III manufacturers who are granted the privilege by the FBI and ATF to make such weapons for military and law enforcement. There are an estimated 300,000-350,000 registered machine guns in the US. Since the NFA there have only been two murders with legally owned machine guns, both after FOPA. One was by a police officer. The rest are by illegally owned machine guns, that were imported illegally, usually from Mexico or china. www.guncite.com...


Statistics:

The statistics are really not in favor of gun control. There are much much much stronger drivers of criminal violence, including homicide by firearm, than the mere presence of firearms. In fact, the availability of firearms provides a statistically significant violent crime deterrent.

Lets start with usual talking points. Firearm related homicide. There are ~31,000 deaths related to a firearm every year. The vast majority are suicides. Lets not go into the morality of suicide, morality is subjective and has no place in this discussion. Of those ~31,000, ~15,000 are homicides. Of those ~15,000 homicides, ~11,000 are by firearm. Okay. Lets look at this number, 11,000. www.gunpolicy.org...

Of those ~11,000, almost 9,000 are gang related slayings. ~7,500 a year are black on black crime, or 21 a day. ~94% of those are firearm related, or ~7000. That means the largest majority of firearm related deaths besides suicide is gang related, and among gangs is African American gangs. It also means a huge use of illegally procured firearms. That means those committing the offense would acquire the firearms regardless of their legality. This leaves us with ~2,500 deaths a year that aren't organized crime related. About ~1,000 of the remaining 2,500 is legal use of lethal force by civilians and law enforcement officers combined. So that's about 1,500 deaths in the US a year attributed to non gang affiliated but still illegal homicide. Mass shootings, home invasions that aren't gang related, straight up murder, and the others fit into this ~1,500. This is how many people die a year in the US who don't necessarily put themselves in a position in their life to get shot and killed, but do anyway. Not too shabby considering our population and demographics. Deaths involving mass shootings very seldom break double digits over a year and sometimes don't even get into the double digits.

Unless you are criminally affiliated, the statistics of gun crime in the US are extremely tame considering the number of firearms possessed legally by law abiding citizens. This partly proves that the mere availability of firearms to the legal citizenry doesn't necessarily translate into higher gun crime. The gang stuff has demographics behind it and I will get into that later on, these demographics are a far stronger driver of gun violence than the mere presence of them. There is also an ethics portion to this that I will go into at that time. When 10s of thousands die annually at the hand of someone else, a number like 20 or 15 is a statistical anomaly. I blows me away that people want to legislate away a constitutional guarantee for the sake of expediency over a statistic of null value. I can only imagine they would do the same with the other guarantees if they were indoctrinated enough to think something like free speech or free travel were somehow deadly business.

www.bjs.gov...
www.bjs.gov...
www.fbi.gov...
www.fbi.gov...

The most conservative of estimate regarding the number of violent crimes (Murder, Rape, Assault, Robbery, etc) deterred by the mere brandishing and not shooting of a firearm by a would be victim is ~800,000 a year. Or 1.5 a minute. These are only the ones reported to police. The top end estimate including those not reported to police is in the viscinity of ~2.4 million. Or 4.5 a minute. These are crimes that don't happen because the potential victim is armed, and no one gets hurt. I don't know how badly violent crime would surge in the US if citizens were disarmed over night, but considering the drivers for violent crime and homicide, I think the potential is high. Brazil comes to mind. I also think these statistics show that the availability of firearms provides for a significant deterrent to crime in general. Enough to possibly completely counter every firearm related death with a life saved and crime prevented. No official source has ever gone into it, but based on what I'm seeing, I don't think it's unreasonable to think it's a very possible notion, do you?

Conservative estimate: www.cdc.gov...
Top end estimate: scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu...

Kennesaw Georgia is an excellent example within the US as to how the availability of firearms deters more crime that it creates. Kennesaw is a suburb of Atlanta. In the late 70s to early 80s, Kennsaw had an increasing robbery, burglary, assault, and home invasion problem. In 1982 the city passed an ordinance that made it mandatory for every home owner in the municipality to own a firearm. Burglaries dropped by 83% in two years.


Demographics:

It's no coincidence that the areas with the highest crime have the lowest income. The lack of educational and employment opportunities goes with violent crime like peas and carrots.
www.ou.edu...

For all the boons that diversity brings, the potential for considerably increased violent crime is certainly one of the busts that has to be accepted with it. Typically, diverse areas have very low civic participation leading to increased violent crime.
www.boston.com...
ncoc.net...

IQ, basic unlearned natural intelligence, your born intellectual potential, also greatly affects your proclivity for violent crime. IQ affects educational and employment opportunities and therefore income, and therefore the likelihood of living in a "diverse" area.
libtreasures.utdallas.edu...

Violent crime, and therefore homicide by firearm is greatly affected by not only educational and economic demographics, but by cultural, and ethnic demographics as well. So much so, that these demographics can predict gun crime fairly accurately, even in states and countries that have extremely strict firearms laws, and even in places that have outright bans. Likewise relatively high social homogeneity, IQ, and standard of living equate to a lack of violent crime overall and therefore gun related crime. However, like all systems, it's the combination that matters, not the individual part. A homogenous but low IQ area would see a marked increase in violent crime. Diverse high income areas with high IQ demographics typically have low crime, too, but more crime than homogenous areas.

South Korea is the most homogenous nation the planet. Japan a close 2nd place. Both have outright bans on firearm possession. They also have extremely low homicide rates.

Lets look at the UK where there is a complete ban on handguns.
www.dailymail.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...

Now lets look at the UK Demographics
2001: en.wikipedia.org...
2011: en.wikipedia.org...

The gun laws haven't changed.. Why the increase in gun violence... As my history professor at university once said "demographics os destiny". Also notice, most of it gang related. There are stronger forces at work here besides the availability or lack thereof of firearms.

Switzerland while not linguistically, is very culturally homogenous. Firearm ownership is, by European standards, a casual affair. Note the lack of violent firearm related crime.

Canada too. Firearms aren't terribly restricted in Canada. Sure they have some funky laws, but they can get some stuff that Americans can't. Lets look at their firearm related violent crime. Guess where it's highest? You guessed it, the least demographically homogenous areas.

Purpose

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is two fold.

- The first and most apparent is the right of an individual to own and use a personal weapon. In this capacity, the 2nd amendment allows someone to hunt with the appropriate weapon, allows them to practice hunting if they desire, participate in shooting sports that may or may not be hunting related, practice archery or fencing, or any other activity where a noun is being wielded as a weapon. The above also includes defending ones self with the threat of or use of lethal force. That's what weapons, even a frying pan, do. Sure, a frying pan or baseball bat aren't designed to kill, but can do so quite easily. Just like a rifle isn't designed to punch paper at 1000 yards or a shotgun designed to break clay, they can be used in non-lethal recreational activities. The intent of design matters little.

- The second is to allow the citizens of the country to present and project a credible threat of force against the government should a rogue faction within the government try to seize unlawful power or the government itself becomes unrepresentative of the people or a veritable host of other things. People will say, "but the military has fighter jets, and tanks, and well, ordnance. If we only have arms, what can we do?" If arms isn't enough, I would like to point you in the direction of Libya, where simply armed individuals overthrew an ordnance wielding dictatorship. Lets look at Afghanistan while we're at it. A place where the merely armed have had two of the worlds largest powers die at its feet. Chechnya. The Balkans in the 90s. Syria. Wherever you go in the world, societies that are armed are self determining preeminent societies that either have the power to resist an outside power or an inside power. That's the root of it. It empowers the people like nothing else does. The US revolution is one of the few in the history of the world where the victors stripped themselves of the power they just won and gave it to the people. They gave over the power so completely that they also gave over the ultimate check to that power as well. I think it was chairman Mao who said "political power grows from the barrel of a gun"

This is the best way I have seen it put in a long time. Please take the time to read it:
longwoodinstitute.wordpress.com...

Quoted for convenience:

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under
threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two
categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact
through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the
personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use
reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your
threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing
with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a
carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity
in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and
a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad
force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more
civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes
it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only
true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by
choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a
mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a
successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force
monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute
lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out
of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal
force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the
stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an
octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply
wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and
easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I
cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid,
but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions
of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of
those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…
and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed
and can only be persuaded, never forced."

The same applies to a people's relationship with their government.


Conclusion

From a legal standpoint, legislating against the 2nd amendment is illegal. Legislation against a constitutional guarantee is an infringement. If you really want the amendment nullified by another, then amend the constitution. It's very difficult, but it has been done. That would be the only way it could be altered correctly. Assuming that the militia means the people, well regulated does not mean mandates, legislation, sanction, or any other form of government imposition against their right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, arguing for the legislation against the 2nd amendment is wrong, not in a subjective sense, but an objective sense.

Focusing strictly on the availability of the firearms themselves while at the same time ignoring the statistics attached and demographics to support the statistics means that you are not interested in positively impacting gun related homicide, but are more interested in control for the sake of control.

Depriving an entire people's ability to protect their individual selves, denying their ability to project credible force as the final check to government, denying their ability to act with self determination as a society, by illegally legislating against a constitutional guarantee because you're focusing on the wrong part of the societal system is wrong.

Too many people are concerned with what is expedient vs. what is right.

There is a right way to make our society better, and it isn't by stripping the rights of the good guys.

reply to post by Galvatron


that is one serious b#*chslap of a post sir! Here's a star to add to your millions….

reply to post by FyreByrd


Actually you would be the one who is "pivoting"... you're pivoting so enthusiastically you'd make MICHAEL JACKSON proud!

The reality is NavyDoc is making very very valid points referencing typewriters/computers and firearms.

here's why:

A single armed man let loose among a group of unarmed people who depend on armed but not on scene "law enforcement" for protection will on average kill 0 to 3 people. Yes sometimes we see incidents where 25 to 40 people are killed, but these are in fact statistical outliers and anyone who knows anything about science knows that outliers should not be weighted all that heavily. Beyond that in this same outlier category in april of 2012 a crazed man in china killed 25 of his fellow chinese citizens with a KNIFE!!! So in reality this knife wielding psycho killed vastly more people than the "average" rampage shooter kills.

(bearing in mind that rampage shooters are not average at all and make up a vanishingly small percentage of the population and who are 95% of the time ALREADY ineligible to own firearms under the current system IF IT WAS BEING USED THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK!)

With all that being said what makes NAVYDOC's post relevant when it comes to typewriters and computers as compared to firearms is the fact that a movie made on a COMPUTER "innocence of muslims" is supposedly what caused the tragic events at Benghazi.... which was an incident that resulted in the deaths of way more people than the average rampage shooter kills.

Mao's Red Book came to be on a ... TYPEWRITER.... how many million people has that caused the death of again?

Ever hear of mein kampf? again typewriter...

The reality is with an hour of judicious time spent at a keyboard you can put into motion events that can kill THOUSANDS, yet you freely acknowledge that it'd be STUPID to force registration or permits for typewriters or computers which are just as much a constitutionally protected right as bearing arms. Not only that but ATS and thousands of other sites unleashed a TORRENT of protest when the recent journalist shield reforms were being written lately and they wanted to exclude bloggers from the protections!

So what makes a right that's INFINITELY more dangerous worth fighting for unrestricted / unobserved implementation thereof while people that own firearms are in your mind child killers or potential child killers....


Well really by your mind it's the GUNS that are child killers.... this is why the term hoplophobia was coined and needs to be used in these conversations!

The reality is the entire anti gun crusade relies so heavily on anthropomorphism, public shaming, shutting down logical conversation through emotional / social blackmail (I.e the so you would rather have dead children than give up your guns argument), and the outright IGNORANCE one entire side of the argument sees as a VIRTUE prevents it from even being a debate. Because debate implies that both sides have a reasonable grasp on the facts and also a WORKING KNOWLEDGE of the subject at hand. However the antigun left sees any actual knowledge about guns as an instant loss of credibility/eligibility for having an opinion worth listening to.

Don't think people aren't noticing. And don't persist in thinking just because people don't agree with you that you are smarter than them. I am college educated and can debate you on any number of topics at will without consulting google first, as can most gun owners. We aren't dumb people, and maybe it's time people like you take a step back and start realizing that and maybe make a genuine effort to see why we see things the way we do.

reply to post by FyreByrd


I think that when we discuss "gun violence in America", we need to put regulation aside long enough to dig to root causes. It would be an obvious fact that people in a home with a gun are more likely to have gun wounds sustained. I would also think that homes without guns would see similar trends relating to homes with knives vs homes without knives. Presence provides opportunity.

But the real question regarding guns, or violence in general, should focus on what causes it. It isn't the guns causing it. Its the people....so what is it that is driving any violence.

There was a study done that correlates, neighborhood by neighborhood in major US cities, crime and environmental lead contamination. It is a perfect overlay. More environmental lead = more violence. As environmental lead has decreased (mostly through the cessation of lead paints and leaded gas), so has crime. The correlation in national crime statistics tells the tale.

That aside, what effect does urban culture have on its youth that we see such a high propensity for 15-20 year old black males to end up gun shot victims? That is low hanging fruit, right there. Begin addressing that, and you see crime decrease.

You can also study the effects of SSRI's, the effect of deployment on the adolescent males left at home, etc, etc. There are numerous points of entry for study into causative factors. Instead, it is always given a prescription of increased regulation. Despite the current regulation just not having the effect it was promised.

This argument, to me, is the same as so many others. The current drug legalization debate cropping up across the nation...this is another example of the government passing legislation that has done absolutely zero.

It isn't laws that are needed restricting items. That isn't liberty. What is needed is evaluation of the root cause. I think if you can make headway there, you also will improve the lives of however many "urban poor" we have in America, who live in the highest amount of violence of all of us.

reply to post by Galvatron


Galvatron while your post was good I will point out that you have flubbed seriously on one key term's definition.

Assault rifle is not an arm resembling a military arm! That is what certain people DEFINE as an assault rifle, but this is a blatant example of newspeak repurposing of the english language to suit a political agenda.

Assault rifle has a definition.

Assault rifles are SELECTIVE FIRE rifles firing intermediate cartridges.

Plain and simple this is what they are.

The items you are referring to are MODERN SPORTING RIFLES. I call them this because this is genuinely what they are! You will see people trying to say oh these features are only good for killing other people blah blah. But the reality is there is a reason why modern rifles take these form factors and sport these features. They make the rifles more user friendly, easier to use accurately and efficiently, and it takes advantage of technology that was not available when rifles were made a different way!

There is NO reason why the general populace should be restricted to design features that are plainly obsolescent and are fading out because there are BETTER WAYS TO DO IT! Especially if you know your revolutionary war history!

The only reason the colonists weren't rolled under on day 2 of the revolutionary war is because they were using the most UP TO DATE firearms technology they could get their hands on while the british military was using older but serviceable weapons whose shortcomings were compensated for with a series of tactics, techniques, and procedures. Our forefathers Knew this when they wrote the 2nd amendment! Do you really think they'd deny the public the ONE advantage that saved THEM in their darkest hour?

I sure don't....

Maybe that's why they've slowly but surely started teaching our children that the founding fathers did a good thing even though they were "dangerous extremists".... could it be because the founding fathers have said stuff that the ruling classes find inconvenient to this day? Wouldn't that be one HELL of a motive to teach the next generations that the founding fathers were bad men that did a good thing?

Just some food for thought.