|By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 07:56 am: Edit|
"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."
People always try to fight this right, and take guns away from the people. But they just don't understand it.
"A well regulated Militia" what are Militia? At the time this was written they were what we call minute men now, which were CIVILIANS. People for gun control always try to argue this line as meaning the national guard and armed forces, however it means what it means, there were no national guard or armed forces at the time this was written. Militia are the civilian population.
"being necessary to the security of a free State"
This is two fold, to protect from our enemies yes, but also to protect us from ourselves! Sometimes when a government becomes overly oppresive it must be over thrown by its' citizens. If the Colonials had not had guns, we would still be under British rule. There have been times threw out history when it has been necessary to defend yourselves against your own government. What happens when the government controls all of the guns? There are currently only 3 countries like this, guess which ones they are... Cuba, North Korea and China. What is a general population with out fire arms? A prison.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Plain and simple, It Shall not be infringed! Our Founding fathers knew what had happened in other countries, when the public could not defend themselves from an oppresive government. Absolute power Corrupts absolutely. What happens when you take fire arms from the people? The government has all power, whether ruled by one man(PC: person), or a group of men(PC: people). And in our case while we are governed by a Republic, One man has power over all of the armed forces, the President.
|By Welshie (Welshie) on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 01:16 pm: Edit|
A few things:
1) The militia was the equivalent of the armed forces in colonial times. They didn't have the manpower, money, or resources to keep a full-sized army on call. Instead, they called upon the militia men (minute men) and they rallied together to form the army. Drawing a connection between the militia and modern armed forces isn't too much of a stretch.
2) The Colonial folks really didn't have too many guns. The British forts here did. Most all of the major battles in the Revolutionary War were fought when American soldiers were attempting to take British forts for resources (guns, ammo, etc., etc.).
3) Gun control doesn't equate into taking away all the guns from the lawful people while allowing the criminals still have free reign. Control is supposed to control the gun market. That is, control the sell of guns, the storage of guns and the like. Most liberals don't want the government to come and take all the private arms away but instead, wish the government to enforce safety measures such as background checking and trigger locks.
|By Somecanadianguy (Somecanadianguy) on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 06:44 pm: Edit|
Can you answer me one question, why do civilians need assault weapons?
|By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 06:49 pm: Edit|
1) “The militia was the equivalent of the armed forces in colonial times.” –Simply, this is incorrect. There was no American government at the time; the government was the British Empire. How could a government that did not exist have an army? They couldn’t. “Drawing a connection between the militia and modern armed forces isn't too much of a stretch.”- Yes it is, the militia (minute men) were never paid, drafted, or served, they were organized civilian resistant to an oppressive government.
2) “The Colonial folks really didn't have too many guns.” - One again incorrect, they did not have a standard fire arm, because there was no one to supply them with one (they were not an army). However, nearly every household of the time had a fire harm of some type. “Most all of the major battles in the Revolutionary War were fought when American soldiers were attempting to take British forts for resources (guns, ammo, etc., etc.)” - Yes, there was no one to supply an organized civilian resistance with ammo, so ammo supplies were limited.
3) “Gun control doesn't equate into taking away all the guns from the lawful people while allowing the criminals still have free reign.” - No, often it means taking guns away from all of the general Population. “Control is supposed to control the gun market. That is, control the sell of guns, the storage of guns and the like.” - There is not a huge arms depot super store called ‘Criminals R’ Us’ supplying criminals with guns. In fact 34% of guns used for criminal action are stolen. Further more not everyone committing a crime with a gun was previously a Criminal. “Most liberals don't want the government to come and take all the private arms away but instead, wish the government to enforce safety measures such as background checking and trigger locks.” – I wish this was the case, however gun control is gun control, not gun safety precautions.
|By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 06:59 pm: Edit|
"Can you answer me one question, why do civilians need assault weapons?"
Firstly, could you tell me where I stated this? Secondly, there is not an accurate clear-cut definition of assault weapons. What is defined as one varies. Thirdly, the Bow and Arrow was a sufficient weapon of defense at one time, but you see how well the Indians did against a superior weapon. The same principle applies for weapons of today, a musket would not stand a chance against a semi automatic. Like wise a handgun, can hardly defend against some of the weapons commonly classified as assault weapons.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 07:03 pm: Edit|
Good job jl87d and excellent responses.
I just wish some people would actually read the MANY previous threads where we already defined the advantages and necessity of these "assault rifles," while at the same time debunking numerous misconceptions and poor reasoning.
This is such deja vu, it's beginning to become a headache for me, Jl87d, and the rest of the crew.
|By Welshie (Welshie) on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 08:41 pm: Edit|
I didn't say the militia men were the Army but that they were the equivalent (or at least as close as they could to being so). They were the group of armed men that fought the enemies in the battlefield. When they were called upon (not necessarily drafted) they ceased to be only citizens and were the militia/armed forces.
My comment about the Colonists not having "too" many guns was to point out that the war being won by Colonists was not cause of the amount of guns we had. As I said again, we took much of our supplies from the British with less than civilized battle tactics.
Lastly, you still jump to the extreme view that gun control equates into taking away guns from the entire populace (which it doesn't). The most common practices of gun control are licensing, background-checking, and required locks/storage.
|By Megofou (Megofou) on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 09:27 pm: Edit|
I hate this issue. There is no right or wrong. It's all grey and murky. Better saftey features on guns would be a good thing. But really, the only thing that can be helped by that sort of regulation is in-home accidental shootings. (Kid shoots other kid or self.) Gun control is not going to help crime.
I have no facts to back this up because it came up in a conversation during class...so my source is total hearsay. But, in said conversation, it was mentioned that crime went down in a city who had legal concealed carry...like, the opposite of gun control. Why? Because what sort of mugger is going to pull a gun on a person walking down the street (with no actual intention of harming, just robbing), when that person may be carrying a concealed weapon and actually use it in the face of danger?
I don't know if the story is true or not, but the theory makes sense to me.
Me = liberal with a non-liberal view on guns.
|By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 09:44 pm: Edit|
i think during the revolutionary most of the colonist had guns for hunting unless they lived in the city. the reason they did want to raid british armarys was for the large cannons, which were only made for the army. They also needed the gunpowder and lead to make bullets. most familys were armed with the kentucky rifle i beleive, which was ideal for fighting in a wilderness situation. Some people did need guns, they were most often young men who didnt or couldnt take their familys rifle.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 10:07 pm: Edit|
Megofou, you are correct in that point. states which have a shall-issue concealed carry weapon policy have some of the lowest per capita rates of violent crime.
On the hand, cities like DC, St. Louis, NYC, and Baltimore have the MOST strict gun laws in the world. Nearly all guns are completely banned in those cities. The result? Murder, rape, and robbery are through the roof since criminals have essentially free reign.
Washington DC has analyzed its crime statistics, and is considering overturning many of its excessively strict gun laws soon.
|By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 02:31 am: Edit|
Vancat and Megofou,
Exellent point. Guns don't cause crimes, they are a tool somtimes used to commit them. There has always been cases of high per capita crime in human society, look at saddam and gomorrah. Guns are a relitvley recent invention. What was the exuse before guns? Exellent point Vancat and Megofou.
I think everyone should take a look at this article, very informing.
|By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 07:28 am: Edit|
places/leaders that have/had instilled gun control
* Saddam Hussein's Iraq
* Nazi Germany
* Stalinist Soviet Union
* Pol Pot (Cambodia?)
* Fidel Castro- Cuba
* The Arab government in Sudan
i think we should compare the murder rate in those countries to the murder rate in the USA. I'd rather fear the occasional psycho path, than my own government. why should we trust the government with our guns?
gun control only hurts law abiding citizens. bad people are bad no matter what you do or what law you set--they'll break it. (many criminals get their weapons illegally in the first place)
people have the right to self defense---government has a right to protect our safety, but they don't have the power to change the minds and hearts of every evil criminal who plans on killing someone. gun control would only make crime worse i would think---particularly in our country.
i would think many more people die in drunk driving accidents than from homicides...shoudl there be prohibition of alcohol again?
|By Hayden (Hayden) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 08:34 pm: Edit|
The 2nd Amendment isn't an issue I'm really into, but I think the definition of "militia" is interesting. Some of the previous comments seem to point to a militia being a group of civilians who show up, muskets in hand, when the church bell rings, and are essentially a volunteer group.
That's not really what they were. If you look at the documents from various state archives from the Rev War, you will see that the militia was a specific, identifiable group of men who "enlisted" in the rolls, had rank, had officers they took orders from, and received pay for time served. If they failed to show up for muster, they were disciplined.
The main difference between the militia and the "army" was that the Continental Army was the army under George Washington and the "national" government, while the militias were under the control of the individual states. The two worked together, but were under separate authority.
In fact, the militia was pretty much like the National Guard. (Only no one sent them to Iraq in 1776.)
Having said all that, I don't think the nature of the militia is the critical part of the gun debate. So, carry on.
|By Thermodude (Thermodude) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 10:11 pm: Edit|
Actually, I heard that state militias were eventually turned into the National Guard. This occurred some time after the Civil War, which was possible because the Southern States had well-organized state militias.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 11:09 pm: Edit|
yes, organized state militias eventually became known as the "national guard." However, you have to remember that the National Guard is a federally funded, trained, and equipped force. Only during peacetime is the Guard under state control. In times of national emergency, the Guard essentially falls under jurisdiction of the federal government.
That is a big difference from the independent citizen's "militia" (i.e. the armed civilians) that can be rapidly assembled and armed to respond to anything from crime to a situation where the government goes haywire (can DEFinately happen). That is what the 2nd amendment is refering to.
|By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 02:23 am: Edit|
It was my understanding that the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army nor a national army. Therefore, they wanted the individual states to be able to summon a militia when necesssary. Hence the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
|By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 09:27 am: Edit|
Bump, I have not yet seen a rebuttal supporting gun control that holds water. Does that mean their is not one? Can those of you who support gun control continue to justify it when your biased 'facts' have been discredited by common logic?
|By Justice (Justice) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 10:12 am: Edit|
"On the hand, cities like DC, St. Louis, NYC, and Baltimore have the MOST strict gun laws in the world. Nearly all guns are completely banned in those cities. The result? Murder, rape, and robbery are through the roof since criminals have essentially free reign. "
LOL more likely because there are more poor African-Americans in those cities. If you can blame "strict gun laws," surely I can blame more statistically accurate factors. I'm not for gun control, but that was one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
|By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:11 am: Edit|
Justice, if that's true then perhaps you should take a look at this article http://johnrlott.tripod.com/swissgunlaws.html
It's a common occurrence for cities/nations with stricter gun laws to actually have more problems with gun related violence.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 03:13 pm: Edit|
"LOL more likely because there are more poor African-Americans in those cities. If you can blame "strict gun laws," surely I can blame more statistically accurate factors. I'm not for gun control, but that was one of the dumbest things I've ever heard."
Hmmm actually, the reason why criminals in places such as DC and St. Louis have so many opportunities to commit crime is because their victims are DEFENSELESS. In cities like these, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are flat out banned, and don't even get me started on licensed concealed carry. The criminals KNOW that the victims, whether it be a woman walking down a street or a family at home, will almost certainly be unarmed and helpless. Of course, the poverty and economic conditions do play a part in these crime rates, but you have to realize the fact that disarming the law-abiding citizen is the REASON why these criminals are able to commit crimes at will.
|By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 03:13 pm: Edit|
I've discussed this topic with a sociology professor at my university, who's specialized in criminology for.. around 30 years. His basic opinion was that focusing on gun control as a means of reducing violence in our country is quite short-sighted.
Countries like finland and switzerland (i think he said switz or sweden) apparently have guns in almost every home, and yet their violence rates are nowhere near ours. The more important issue that needs to be addressed is not whether we should have guns or not, but why we are so inclined to use them against each other. Taking away guns will probably just reduce the amount of deaths from violence, because people will be using less fatal weapons, but it won’t reduce the amount of violence itself.
Just my two cents
|By Michuncle (Michuncle) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 05:37 pm: Edit|
Re: Switzerland and a gun in every pot...er home.
Contrary to what many people believe to be true: that every person in Switzerland is armed to the teeth like us Americans, this simply isn't true.
Switzerland has a population of some 7 million people. All males from the age of 20 to 42 must serve in the military. As of Jan. of this year, 220,000 males are in the Swiss military. Common soldiers have an automatic rifle at home with a sealed box of bullets (72). Officers have a pistol as well as an automatic rifle. All bullets and weapons are strictly controled by the government.
At the age of 42 (though the upper age for the Swiss military seems to be dropping to 37), soldiers return their uniforms, rifles and bullets back to the government.
See the following comment from a FAQ about Switzerland (web link cited at the end of this message):
"Q: Here are some questions about the Swiss
National defense system: I have been told, that the Swiss army has erected many underground buildings in the mountains and that all Swiss citizens have a gun at home. Is this true?"
"A: It is true that in many mountains cave-like buildings have been erected to serve military purposes. They hold not only arms and all kind of things people may need in case of crises, but even fighter planes.
Every male citizen has to do military service. This starts at the age of 20 and ends when we become 42. During that time, soldiers keep their arms at home, an automatic rifle for simple solders like me, a pistol for officers, plus a couple of bullets in a sealed box. At the age of 42, we have to return the gun, the bullets and all the clothing etc."
Despite strict gun control laws, Switzerland does have a high handgun ownership rate. Unlike the US, bullets are also government regulated. According to the UN, Switzerland has the second highest rate for handgun violence after the US! 14% of Swiss households have a handgun vs. 29% for the US. The US has 5.28 handgun deaths per 100,000 population. Switzerland has 1.42 deaths per the same population rate. From 1990 to 2000, Switzerland's violent crime rate actually went up! Canada, Sweden, Austrialia, UK, and Japan have much lower rates...
While I'm in favor of gun control, poitically it will never happen to the extent that is true in other countries. We thank the NRA for that.
Frankly, we could have a Columbine massacre everyday of the week and nothing would change. All the AK-47's in the hands of "honest" citizens could not have prevented 9/11. What might have prevented this national tragedy? How about a bunch of college students who majored in Arabic and Farsi who could have translated all of those FBI intercepts?
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 07:57 pm: Edit|
We said Switzerland has a higher proportion of armed citizens. Who said that they were all "armed to the teeth" like you implied?
>Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%
And Michuncle, you are also forgetting that Canada has quite a few more weapons compared to the US, yet their gun crime rates are far lower than the US.
>"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
>"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
>"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
|By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 09:22 pm: Edit|
"Switzerland has the second highest rate for handgun violence after the US!"- I for one would be very, very interested to find out where you came up with this, ahh statistic (bull ). Especially since you contradict your self in the next line. - "The US has 5.28 handgun deaths per 100,000 population. Switzerland has 1.42 deaths per (100,000)"- That's right, nearly FOUR times less! And the Swiss have a weapon in nearly every home!
|By Michuncle (Michuncle) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 11:46 pm: Edit|
Try reading this site...Murder rates
Try reading this site...
"And the Swiss have a weapon in nearly every home!"
Certainly true for those in the military. All weapons are registered with the government as are the sale of bullets...
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 01:06 am: Edit|
Michuncle, you still are unable to prove this very point: Why violent crime is so rampant in select cities in the US such as St. Louis or DC. Economic factors may be the "cause" of crime, but it is the fact that a near total ban on guns in the hands of law abiding citizens that has given criminals the ablity to prey at will among the population.
By contrast, consider Brazil. All firearms in Brazil must be registered with the government. This registration process can take anywhere from 30 days to three months. All civilian handguns are limited in caliber to no more than 9mm. All rifles must fire handgun ammunition only. Brazilians may only buy one gun per year. At any one time, they may only have in their possession a maximum of six guns: two handguns, two rifles and two shotguns. To transport their guns, citizens must obtain a special police permit. CCW permits are available but are rarely issued.
For example: Despite Brazil's extremely tough gun laws, its fairly easy to know that it has one of the highest murder and violent crime rates of all countries. Incidentally, Brazil's murder rate is 19 victims per 100,000 population per year. (compared to 7/100,000 in the US). Why? Because the criminals may strike at will, and have little to fear from the inefficient police force.
"The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that, in 1997, there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms (the statistics do not distinguish firearm use in consummated murders from attempts). With its population of seven million (which includes 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which is why one hears reference in casual talk to "criminal tourists.Sometimes, the data sounds too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.
In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned."
>Limited gun regulation and control does work, but heavily strengthening it or banning them outright is a recipe for disaster.
|By Michuncle (Michuncle) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 10:30 am: Edit|
My problem with people that use Switzerland as an example of how guns at home act as a deterent for crime misses the point of the Swiss system. All firearms are registered with the government. All sales of ammunition are recorded by the seller with the government. I have no problem with gun ownership.
If people point to the Swiss system of firearm ownership as a way to reduce crime, then adopt their system in toto. The Swiss have no problem with registering their weapons with the police and the government. It is a sane policy.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:17 am: Edit|
no kidding. Registration and background checks are a GOOD way of keeping track of gun ownership, but it gets out of hand when people begin to ban certain guns or ALL guns or when they start to impose ridiculous and excessive regulations to gun owners.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|