Posted on Jun 30, 2017
Aside from the Second Amendment, what are the logically and evidence-supported arguments for uninfringed firearm possession?
6.31K
151
44
2
2
0
Posted in these groups: 
Constitution
Gun Control
Constitution Gun Control
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 14
9
9
0
Unfringed? That's a strange choice of words...however, I'll answer your question by sending you to another of our Constitutional Amendments. The 18th Amendment, which prohibited the production, transport, and sale of alcohol within the United States. It didn't work and neither has, does, or would the banning guns in America. You might ask why? Because criminals do not obey laws! Take away guns and you take away the means of defense by the weak over the strong and the immoral. Of course most Americans are not criminals so when you take away their guns you make them easy prey. On a side note the NRA started out defending the rights of black Americans in the South to own guns so they could protect themselves from the KKK (it's true...you can look it up).
You might then want to argue that if we could magically remove all guns from America, things would be better. But that's not true either. Look at England where their death by violence rates went up dramatically after banning guns. The criminals just changed weapons. I'm not even going to mention the ongoing disaster that America's big cities have become after enacting strict gun control on their law abiding citizens. Remember that criminals don't care about obeying gun control laws, they just want to take what you have and sometimes all they want is to hurt you and your family.
You might then want to argue that if we could magically remove all guns from America, things would be better. But that's not true either. Look at England where their death by violence rates went up dramatically after banning guns. The criminals just changed weapons. I'm not even going to mention the ongoing disaster that America's big cities have become after enacting strict gun control on their law abiding citizens. Remember that criminals don't care about obeying gun control laws, they just want to take what you have and sometimes all they want is to hurt you and your family.
(9)
(0)
7
7
0
Interesting question and very thought provoking. The only thing I can really say, without evidence on hand, is that criminals can attack at anytime and place. If you live in a state like California, where you have a mostly disarmed populous, they honest hard work citizens have no defense because the police cannot be present 24/7 for all criminal activity that happens. In Utah, its much easier to get a CFP (Concealed Firearms Permit) and you don't see blood in the streets from the legal citizens. Its still the criminals that offer up the majority of the violence and in Utah, you never know who is armed. Criminals are cowards, and someone intent on harming lots of people, prefer to do it in an environment of their choosing, where getting shot back at is at a minimal.
For my supporting evidence, the theatre shooting in Colorado, Sandy Hook, the Pulse Nightclub. All of these are locations where gun free zones were established. Gun laws will stop a law abiding citizen that does not want to be arrested. They will never stop a criminal. Being able to defend yourself, as you are the first responder in an incident you are involved in, is not a hard thing to understand, at least not for me.
For my supporting evidence, the theatre shooting in Colorado, Sandy Hook, the Pulse Nightclub. All of these are locations where gun free zones were established. Gun laws will stop a law abiding citizen that does not want to be arrested. They will never stop a criminal. Being able to defend yourself, as you are the first responder in an incident you are involved in, is not a hard thing to understand, at least not for me.
(7)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
Colorado, Sandy Hook, the Pulse Nightclub all the shooters had mental health issues, including the shooter of Republican Congressman at the base ball filed.
(0)
(0)
SPC Jeremy Gardner
You are correct, but my point is that you can never tell when you will be a victim. It could be in an hour, in 10, in 10 years, that is up to the person(s) who decided to commit the crime. Mental health is a very serious issue, one that does not really get a great deal of coverage, since any gun crime is obviously the fault of the gun not the person holding it. The examples I used are just some of many. I could use the beheading of the police officer in France, or the instance of the soldier at Ft. Hood that started shooting people.
There very well could be a link between mental illness and violence, I think there are many studies about this and I am not an expert on that. Peoples rights should not be infringed because you never know when someone will decide its your turn to die on a whim. The founding fathers knew that a tyrannical government, with a disarmed populous, could abuse power easily and the people would have no real defense to stop it. I am looking at things from the stand point of being held at gun point and threatened. Its a terrible feeling looking down the barrel of a gun and left wondering.
There very well could be a link between mental illness and violence, I think there are many studies about this and I am not an expert on that. Peoples rights should not be infringed because you never know when someone will decide its your turn to die on a whim. The founding fathers knew that a tyrannical government, with a disarmed populous, could abuse power easily and the people would have no real defense to stop it. I am looking at things from the stand point of being held at gun point and threatened. Its a terrible feeling looking down the barrel of a gun and left wondering.
(3)
(0)
6
6
0
The concept of Militia began in America in the 16oos. The Militia in each English colony included every able-bodied male aged 16-45. Every member was responsible to provide his own weapons, which originally included a matchlock musket and a sword. As firearm development continued, matchlock muskets turned into flintlock muskets, and then flintlock rifles, followed by percussion muskets and percussion rifles. These firearms advancements can be traced through the purchases of firearms by the British Army, the Continental Army, and the U.S. Army. The militia in the British colonies in North America were typically armed with similar, if not identical firearms as the British Army. By the time of the American Revolution, the common soldiers in the militias and the British Army were armed with the "Brown Bess" musket. After the Revolution, the concept of Militia continued and the Militia Act of 1792 called for all members of the Militia in each state to be issued a long arm at Federal expense. It was SOP to arm the militiamen with the same weapons that the Regular Army soldiers carried. This concept of arming the militia with Army weapons continued throughout the 1800s as firearms development went through single shot rifles with paper cartridges, lever action carbines, to bolt action rifles. In the 1900s, both the militia and Regular Army were using the M1903 Springfield bolt action rifle during WWI until it was replaced by the M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle during WWII and the Korean War. The militia morphed into the Army National Guard after WWI, but the idea of the Militia did not change. Just because a person has never served in the uniformed services, including the National Guard, does not mean that there is no militia. Just like from the 1600s until WWI, the Militia includes all able-bodied men aged 16-45. Since there is no current mechanism for these people to be armed at government expense, they will need to provide their own weapons. It makes sense that these weapons be of the same quality as the current weapons issued to the military, not the muskets of 1792 as some have said that the 2nd Amendment refers to. I hope this has been helpful to this discussion. Any errors are my own.
(6)
(0)
2LT (Join to see)
I know he asked to steer away from the 2nd, but you have a good point. For an overwhelming amount of time the Supreme Court took the view that the 2nd pertained to the national guard. The debates during the constitutional ratification also included if the U.S. would rely on militias for defense or a standing army. I think the 2nd was introduced as a middle ground for the side that preferred a militia force (like what fought in the revolution).
(3)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Mark --- do you know HOW the Congress fulfilled its Constitutional obligation of "arming ... the militia"?
The Militia Act(s) -- 1792 directed every free, White, male, able-bodied citizen who was conscripted into the militia to "provide himself" with a suitable firearm, ammunition for it, and the field equipment we used to call "782 gear" back in the "old Corps".
Note that no one was ordered to buy anything, just get what was required some way. (That always reminds me of the First Sergeant telling troops to have all required gear for "junk on the bunk" by admonishing them "Build, buy, beg, borrow, steal, shit, or give birth to your issued 782 gear".)
Pretty smart of the Congress. Not a cent came out of the Federal budget to put a musket in a militiaman's hands, and they saw to it that the militia was armed.
The Militia Act(s) -- 1792 directed every free, White, male, able-bodied citizen who was conscripted into the militia to "provide himself" with a suitable firearm, ammunition for it, and the field equipment we used to call "782 gear" back in the "old Corps".
Note that no one was ordered to buy anything, just get what was required some way. (That always reminds me of the First Sergeant telling troops to have all required gear for "junk on the bunk" by admonishing them "Build, buy, beg, borrow, steal, shit, or give birth to your issued 782 gear".)
Pretty smart of the Congress. Not a cent came out of the Federal budget to put a musket in a militiaman's hands, and they saw to it that the militia was armed.
(2)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
It's my opinion that the term "militia" is every bit as relevant today as it was when the Constitution was written, and it has nothing to do with the National Guard (I'm not saying anyone here claimed that, I'm just laying out my case). In the vernacular of the time, the National Guard would be considered a part-time standing army, not a militia. A more recent comparison would be a posse -- an ad hoc collection of armed men brought together for a purpose, often lead by someone having authority like a sheriff, though that's not a requirement.
The most recent best example of a militia, in my opinion, is the Korean shop owners during the Rodney King riots. Sections of Los Angeles were being looted and torched, and people were getting hurt and killed. After some initial violence against some Korean shops, the shop owners got their guns and actively & successfully defended their shops and their area of town. They saved themselves from millions of dollars of theft and destruction, and probably saved themselves from visits to hospitals or morgues.
Everything about that situation was in line with what the framers had in mind. Government at that time had chosen not to protect them, so they came together on their own with enough firepower to preserve their property and liberty. They could do this because they owned guns.
The most recent best example of a militia, in my opinion, is the Korean shop owners during the Rodney King riots. Sections of Los Angeles were being looted and torched, and people were getting hurt and killed. After some initial violence against some Korean shops, the shop owners got their guns and actively & successfully defended their shops and their area of town. They saved themselves from millions of dollars of theft and destruction, and probably saved themselves from visits to hospitals or morgues.
Everything about that situation was in line with what the framers had in mind. Government at that time had chosen not to protect them, so they came together on their own with enough firepower to preserve their property and liberty. They could do this because they owned guns.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Many have given you well reasoned, researched reasons for firearm possession by the (law abiding) people. I believe many more will continue to do so. I agree with them and can add little. However, I am drawn to one quote by Thomas Jefferson. After you have read all the replies, read this quote, read it again.... then read it a third time. It summarizes the entire argument and anyone unwilling or unable to see it's truth is at heart a tyrant willing to impose their will over others.
(5)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
I completely understand. And hey, you've been using logic and evidence for years. Feel free to present the logic and evidence right here. I'm sure many people would be interested. It never hurts to have more input!
(0)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
CW3 Harvey K. - It should be noted that the concept of "gun control" is not a new idea, but a very old error as evidenced by Cesare Beccaria's observation. Nor is the recognition of gun control's perverse effect a recent "epiphany", when Beccaria demonstrated gun control as one of the "false ideas of utility" about 2 1/2 centuries ago.
What we should ask is why this perverse "solution" to the problem of violence endures, when it has been proven so wrong every time it was implemented. The only true reason to disarm a people is to dominate them, a difficult task to accomplish if the intended victims are armed.
What we should ask is why this perverse "solution" to the problem of violence endures, when it has been proven so wrong every time it was implemented. The only true reason to disarm a people is to dominate them, a difficult task to accomplish if the intended victims are armed.
(1)
(0)
MSgt George Cater
That's why I said anyone who advocates gun control is at heart a tyrant wanting to impose their derangement on others.
(1)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
MSgt George Cater - Exactly. The excuse given is "Public Safety". The real purpose is to remove the means of resistance. The dreams of the idealists who envision a gunless world of peace and safety for all, are exploited by those who only wish to increase their power and control.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
4
4
0
I live in a rural county. Every law enforcement officer from any village or township in the county, and from all four surrounding townships is deputized within our county by a Mutual Aid Agreement. We also have at least one, but probably not more than two Michigan State Police on patrol within the county. Sounds like a lot of coverage... doesn't it? Home invasion in rural areas is a growing problem in northern Michigan. Still sound like a lot of coverage? (Please don't take this as snarkiness.)
According to our County Sheriff, unless the stars align perfectly, armed law enforcement response is probably 15-20 minutes out for almost 50% of the counties rural residents. If more than one major incident occurs simultaneously, bump the response time to 45-60 minutes, for the third incident. Urban gangs are already suspected of creating simultaneous non-arrest incidents to move response away from the real targets. If a third incident occurs, before the first two are resolved, all Law Enforcement Officers in the county are paged out and have pre-determined holding areas to which they report. Additionally, Law Enforcement in surrounding counties start to "lean in" on the active county.
I do not consider myself an apocalyptic, end of the world prepper loon. If the county Sheriff tells me and my wife that we need to be able to defend ourselves up to one hour, we listen. We are both armed at home. We conduct strategy sessions and walk-through defense against home invasion monthly. Those that we would invite into our home know to call 10 minutes out.
Most of the veterans that run in my social circles have similar plans.
According to our County Sheriff, unless the stars align perfectly, armed law enforcement response is probably 15-20 minutes out for almost 50% of the counties rural residents. If more than one major incident occurs simultaneously, bump the response time to 45-60 minutes, for the third incident. Urban gangs are already suspected of creating simultaneous non-arrest incidents to move response away from the real targets. If a third incident occurs, before the first two are resolved, all Law Enforcement Officers in the county are paged out and have pre-determined holding areas to which they report. Additionally, Law Enforcement in surrounding counties start to "lean in" on the active county.
I do not consider myself an apocalyptic, end of the world prepper loon. If the county Sheriff tells me and my wife that we need to be able to defend ourselves up to one hour, we listen. We are both armed at home. We conduct strategy sessions and walk-through defense against home invasion monthly. Those that we would invite into our home know to call 10 minutes out.
Most of the veterans that run in my social circles have similar plans.
(4)
(0)
SFC Mark Biggs
Most rank and file LEO's in America will agree that police officers do not prevent crimes from happening, they investigate crimes after they have already happened. Therefore, the most effective deterant for a bad guy with a gun is any good guy with a gun. So carry openly if you can, carry concealed if you must, but carry a gun.
(3)
(0)
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
There doesn't need to be anything else. The constitution and its amendments are quite literally the legal gospel.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
MAJ Bryan Zeski - We have re-done the Constitution a few times since then. That's what the amendment process is for.
(0)
(0)
SGT Joseph Gunderson
MAJ Bryan Zeski - the country does need fixing, however that does not mean a revamping of the system. The problem with the country today is that we have gone so far away from what we once were that the entire system is off track. I say again, off track, not broken. We need to bring ourselves back to center. There are things in our government that need to be reeled back in and brought back under control. Certain programs and departments need to be looked at for reorganization or dismantling. There has been legislation passed these past few years that should have never been approved to be put into effect/law. The country needs to realize that everyday that we go forward we are getting further away from the dream that was America. The constitution was a nearly perfectly written document. Say what you like, but it has been the longest standing ruling document in the history of the world and has not done us wrong in that entire history. We had a completely perfect form of government with the correct kinds of checks and balances, but we have allowed ourselves to forget exactly how that system was supposed to function. Men and women got lazy, got used to fat overpaid politicians saying that hey know better, and as long as no one threatened to take away their fast food, fast cars, and cable television no one bothers to get angry enough to incite a real change back to traditional governance of this nation. That is the problem. In the past couple decades I have watched as the powers of government have been abused to a point that would have never flown when our founding fathers had ruled this land. The people would have gathered up those same arms that you are so ready to take away from them and they would have overthrown the corrupt politicians in a heartbeat. But the people have forgotten one simple fact of our government; we are supposed to be in control... Not the house.... Not the Senate... Not the scotus... Not the POTUS..... Us.... And the sooner the masses realize this, the sooner that real and meaningful changes back to the way this are supposed to be will occur. The constitution doesn't need changing. People need changing. P.C. culture needs to go, feelings can Fuck off, and logic, reasoning, and real thought processes need to come back to the forefront of our society. That is what needs to change.
(0)
(0)
SGT Joseph Gunderson
You began you conversation with proposing changing the 2nd Amendment. Lets get back to that. What would you propose to change that would not infringe on my right as a citizen to carry my firearm. With that in mind, remember that the founder father's believed that not only was it my God given right to own and carry a firearm, but that it's sole purpose was not hunting, not shooting the punk trying to break into my house, but I was supposed to be able to bear arms to the equivalent of what the military carries so as to, in the event of a tyranical government, my buddies and I could over throw that government. So, that in mind, what "amendment" to the 2nd Amendment would you propose?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
SP5 Robert Ruck
Great response Capt. Hogan. The Major appears to believe the Constitutional argument to be an argument of tradition. If I have sworn once I have sworn three times in my life to uphold and defend the Constitution. That is more than tradition. That a confirmation to uphold and defend the law of the land, with my life, if necessary.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Maj Marty Hogan - Are you only counting the original Constitution plus the first ten amendments as the "original tenents"? Do the rest of the amendments not hold as much water, Constitutionally? End of slavery... Women's suffrage and all that? How do you decide which amendments to count?
But slavery IS in the Constitution. Each slave was determined to be worth 3/5 of a person. That's not an "original tenet" I support. Do you?
We'll just have to disagree. I think we should always work and think about how to make things better.
But slavery IS in the Constitution. Each slave was determined to be worth 3/5 of a person. That's not an "original tenet" I support. Do you?
We'll just have to disagree. I think we should always work and think about how to make things better.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SP5 Robert Ruck - I'm not saying it's JUST an argument of tradition. But in his usage of it, it is. All laws should have reason and logic at their core. Being able to articulate that reason and logic should not require an appeal to the Constitution. I don't discount the value and importance of the Constitution, but I also don't see it as an unquestionable and unerring document to be revered without a critical eye.
If we are that the Constitution is unquestionable because it's the Constitution, we've failed in logical and rational thinking and analysis.
If we are that the Constitution is unquestionable because it's the Constitution, we've failed in logical and rational thinking and analysis.
(0)
(0)
Maj Marty Hogan
MAJ Bryan Zeski - actually it states a slave was worth 3/5 for purposes of representation. But change it to fit your arguement. Sorry we will agree to disagree and I am capable of rational thought and how to defend it. Again I don't really consider the things you listed as they were not addressed in the original doc. They altered them to ensure those rights were included. Pretty decent rationale in my opinion.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I had a conversation with my son the other day about this principle of freedom vs control. 2A is an excellent example of this but you can substitute Gov't health care which is hot in the news lately.
In a nutshell, it's hard to live with freedom. You have to have self control (Golden Rule) and expect the best (but be prepared for the worst) from other people. If you don't have enough self control, our laws provide a place where there is avery little freedom of action or personal choices. You will live in a place where they open and close all the doors for you and feed you 3 times a day. The less freedom you have, the fewer expectations of self control you have and the fewer options you have. In short, take away a person's options and you have taken away his freedom. That is my persuasive argument against most forms of governmental control. I think that PO3 Jason M. quotes support my overall position. The government is only there to protect the rights that are God given, not given by a king or president. The more the government infringes on that, the less freedom we have.
In a nutshell, it's hard to live with freedom. You have to have self control (Golden Rule) and expect the best (but be prepared for the worst) from other people. If you don't have enough self control, our laws provide a place where there is avery little freedom of action or personal choices. You will live in a place where they open and close all the doors for you and feed you 3 times a day. The less freedom you have, the fewer expectations of self control you have and the fewer options you have. In short, take away a person's options and you have taken away his freedom. That is my persuasive argument against most forms of governmental control. I think that PO3 Jason M. quotes support my overall position. The government is only there to protect the rights that are God given, not given by a king or president. The more the government infringes on that, the less freedom we have.
2
2
0
Logically and evidence-supported arguments? In today's world? I have been using logic, evidence, and quotes from the Founding Fathers for years, and I never get anywhere. Good luck having this discussion out in public.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google