Posted on Oct 11, 2015
Does the Second Amendment need to be Amended?
124K
2.11K
680
231
230
1
There's been a lot of debate about firearms and firearm ownership recently. I've been a part of a lot of it. I think one thing that is achingly necessary is some close reading of the Second Amendment itself. I slapped together a powerpoint for my sister a few years ago on the topic, and will post the text here with the title slide as an image (because it outlines the argument.)
2. Inherent Right to Self Defense
All persons entitled to defend their lives
A threat to one’s life can only be answered with deadly force
Not granted by society, intrinsic to life
Denial of this is endorsement of cannibalism
Granted by God or by nature
Not everyone believes in god
Not everyone can follow this level of philosophy
3. Constitutional Protection
Is highest law of the land
Any law lower that contradicts is null
Many laws already contradict constitution and should be held null but are not
Committing some wrongs do not mean we need to commit more
Only entity Officers of US swear to support and defend
Supreme Court interprets BUT
Has ruled badly in past i.e. Dred Scott
Usually rules against individual liberty
4. Original Intent
Only way to address constitution
Interpreting as we please renders document meaningless
Must obey as written, guided by intent
If desired can AMMEND text
5. Original Intent: Text Analysis
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.
Assisted by Webster’s dictionary 1828. Constitution drafted 1789 Most founders knew Noah Webster (he edited some Federalist papers), he likely represented their ideas of words, Oxford English Dictionary also an option, but requires pay access.
Well regulated: “Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order” disciplined, capable, well-drilled, well-trained, able
Militia: “The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations” men between ages of 15 and 45 able to bear arms, who drill and are available for call-up
Necessary: “1. That must be; that cannot be otherwise; indispensably requisite. It is necessary that every effect should have a cause. 3. Unavoidable; as a necessary inference or consequence from facts or arguments.”
Free: 2. In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord; as a free state, nation or people. The opposite of how the colonists felt themselves under Britain.
State: 5. A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government. All people united under government.
Right: “10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public. 11. Authority; legal power. We have no right to disturb others in the enjoyment of their religious opinions.” Not subject to restriction.
People: “1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation.” All people, not necessarily united in government.
Keep: “1. To hold; to retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part with; as, to keep a house or a farm; to keep any thing in the memory, mind or heart. 2. To have in custody for security or preservation.” To possess under your own power.
Bear: 2. To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, "they bear him upon the shoulder;", "the eagle beareth them on her wings.“12. To possess and use as power; to exercise; as, to bear sway.” Carry anywhere.
Arms: “1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body. Sire arms, are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, &c. A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.” Not Small Arms, a Stand of Arms, no “except sire arms or crew-served weapons or cannon”.
Shall not be: not may not or maybe not, or might be, or could be
infringed: “Broken; violated; transgresses.”
6. Constitutional Protection: Key Words
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.
Words were chosen carefully.
It is the people, not the state, states or militia whose right shall not to be infringed.
The right is to keep and bear arms, not to access, practice or only keep or only bear.
Arms are not small arms, are not a specific type of arms, there is no prohibition on types arms, understanding of larger weapons with high lethality (mortars and cannon) was widespread
7. Defend Self From Government
Founders had observed war of self defense against government
Understood risk of tyrannical government and wanted to guarantee balance of power
Jefferson even endorsed violent clashes
Modern militias CAN challenge national forces
Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine
Numerical, terrain advantages, capture of equipment and defection from government forces quickly even odds.
8. Defend Self From Government
Governments are scary
They kill more people than criminals BY FAR
In the 20th century most countries herded citizens into concentration camps at one point or another (US to Japanese)
It is hard to herd armed people into camps
Nazi Gun Control legislation enabled their genocides (JPFO studies on this-also link US Gun Control Act of 1968 to the Nazi text directly)
Armed Jews are scarier than disarmed Jews: Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
9. Defend Self From Government
The first gun control law National Firearms Act of 1934 was wrought with problems
Allegedly a revenue raising measure, not a ban
State’s case claimed short barreled shotguns in specific were not militia weapons as not used by any military (falsely)
Ignored that NFA 1934 also taxed Machine Guns, definitely used by Militaries
No defense counsel or brief submitted to Supreme Court
Very tricky, specific, semi-dishonest argument involving serial numbers won case
Even the A-USA in the first gun case before the court acknowledged the 2nd amendment is intended to protect military style weapons.
Registration leads to confiscation, there has been no example of national registration schemes not followed by confiscation of some or all registered weapons
10. Defend Self From Government
Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear Weapons, Autonomous Weapons?
These are scary
People probably should not have them
Maybe we need a constitutional amendment
I would prefer governments not have them either, they are the only ones proven to have used them before, and will likely again.
11. Defend Self From Criminals
It is certain that in addition to protection from government, people are entitled to protect themselves from violence by criminals
This derives from the natural right to self defense
Founders understood the need, living before an era of police, and it is acceptable to argue this as a reason AFTER arguing protection for government (same with hunting)
Police cannot respond fast enough to save lives, just investigate after
Police cannot have legal obligation to protect people’s lives (case law has held this)
12. Defend Self From Criminals
Criminals do not obey laws-hence they are criminals
They will not obey gun laws
Only law abiding citizens will
Ordering the law abiding to disarm creates easy victims: “victim disarmament”
Any area the law abiding citizen’s right to bear arms is infringed will become a target for a criminal: ALL of the recent mass shootings occurred in legal (albeit unconstitutional) ‘gun-free’ zones
Lawful gun owners OFTEN end shootings with minimal or NO casualties.
Not being armed equally to criminals means the law abiding fight at disadvantage
Reload times kill (must have full capacity mags)
Don’t require the law abiding to bring a knife to a gun fight or a pistol to a rifle fight, or fists to an anything fight
13. Bad Arguments
It is bad to end the debate with god or nature and not include the constitution, most people cant handle esoteric, or belief arguments. This argument shuts down debate.
It is bad to interpret the constitution however we please, this renders it useless. This argument shuts down the debate.
It is bad to begin the argument of defense of self from government but not follow it all the way through its logical progression, that all existing gun control law is null as unconstitutional. This surrenders logical consistency and truth.
It is bad to begin to argue pragmatics on crime and self protection without including first protection from government, it is not the intent of the amendment.
It is wrong to even allow the opponents to use the phrases (let alone use them ourselves) ‘hunting and sporting’ these are not the intent of the amendment, do not derive from the right to self defense, and most importantly come from GCA 1968 which came from Nazi Gun Control laws
14. Definitions (Military not Legal)
Vehicles usually require a crew to employ and always require a large crew to maintain
E.G. Tanks, Helicopters, Jets, Armored Cars
Crew Served Weapons (CSW) require 2 or more people to employ
Weapons:
Cannon: CSW Large gun 40mm or larger, usually direct fire (flat trajectory)
Howitzer: CSW Large Indirect fire cannon
Mortar: CSW High angle indirect fire weapon
Grenade launcher: gun that fires grenades usually 37 mm or larger (close range indirect fire)
Machine Gun: CSW (usually) Often Belt Fed Gun that fires as long as the trigger is depressed, Heavy is .50cal Medium is .308cal and light .223 Cal (or near these calibers in soviet arms)
Sniper/Special purpose scoped rifle: CSW (when properly used) Long range (1000+ yd) rifle with a scope usually .308 cal or above
Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR): Medium Range (500-800 yds) rifle with a scope, usually .308 cal
Battle Rifle: Medium Range rifle (0-500 yds)
Assault rifle: Smaller caliber rifle for use by assault force, not suppression, light, close-range (0-300)
Carbine: Smaller caliber or powder compromise between a rifle and a submachine gun used for people not expected to be in combat or who MUST have light weight (paratroopers etc.) (0-300)
Submachine Gun: SMG small carbine that shoots a pistol caliber to limit recoil used for very close work that requires fast fires close assault, room clearing (0-100 yds)
Shotgun: Large bore gun for close range work can be automatic, semi-automatic or pump, usually fed fro m a tubular internal magazine newer models include detachable (0-100 yds)
Machine Pistol: An SMG, or a small SMG that looks like a pistol
Pistol: Semi automatic , automatic , or revolving chambered gun operable with one hand with much less powder than even a carbine round (often in calibers .45 and below)
Parts
Clip: a stripper clip has a number of rounds held together on a piece of metal for pushing into the gun rapidly, there they are stored in an internal magazine, “stripper” clips push the rounds off and into the magazine “en bloc” clips go into the guns magazine themselves
Magazine: Where rounds are stored before firing , internal magazines are rare anymore, much more common are detachable magazines often abbreviated “mags” the only military reason for limiting capacity is weight and unwieldy designs, this usually results in 20 rounds for .308, 30 for .223 and around 8-20 for pistols based on caliber size
It has become a legal debate since someone arbitrarily picked “10” as a magazine capacity limit in California, anti gunners say “high capacity” pro gun folk say “full capacity” or just “mag”
Belt: Disintegrating or reloaded (older or soviet) belts fire all rounds linked together fed from a bag or a box. Machineguns use this
Ammunition Round (Ammo, round or Cartridge) the complete package a gun fires (powder, bullet, casing, primer)
Bullet: Projectile that flies from a gun usually smaller and non-explosive
Casing: the brass that encases the powder, crimps to the bullet and holds the primer, ejects from gun after firing
Round: Individual unit of complete ammunition, includes bullet, casing, powder and primer
Shell: Canon or Howitzer bullet OR shotgun complete usually with plastic casing
Grenade: small explosive, can be designed to be thrown (hand-grenade) or fired from a launcher (it can only be either-or)
Measurements:
Caliber: imperial measures from groove to groove in hundredths of an inch diameter ex. .308
MM: metric measurements of lands to lands in mm, usually followed by a metric measurement of the length of the cartridge ex. 7.62x51
15. Rapid responses to opponents
Mass killings:
Not statistically rising or falling
Occur with similar volume and intensity per capita in nations with intense arms control (wiki rampage killings)
Highest casualty US school killing was in the 1920s, used explosives
Legally obtained automatic weapons have been used in 2 crimes in US history, one by a cop
Cops commit more illegal gun violence than concealed carry permit holders
Why don’t cops get mugged?
Guns are equalizers: 225lb 6’2 man vs 5’9 120lb woman: the outcome only changes when she has a gun
16. Pro Gun Organizations (Biased list)
Revolutionary War Veterans of America
Teach the historical connection between guns and the revolution, skills necessary to shoot
“no politics after 1776”
Gun Owners of America
Second biggest Pro gun lobby, second highest profile, very libertarian
“The only no-compromise gun lobby In Washington” –Ron Paul
National Association for Gun Rights
Rocky Mountain roots, anti-UN streak
“No compromise” est. 2000
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Scholarship on gun control and genocide, especially Nazism
“America’s most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership”
Citizens for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Strong critic of Obama Policies, especially fast and furious
“The Common Sense Gun Lobby”
National Rifle Association
The big dog, huge money (even its opponents admit the bulk of this comes from individual gun owners)
More willing to compromise than the above, but being pushed away from compromise by the above
Founded by Union Army Officers to ensure marksmanship for future soldiers
Independent Firearms Owners Association
Enforce the laws we have now, don’t persecute gun owners, NRA has gone too conservative because of the above
“Effective Solutions for Complex Criminal Justice Problems”
Libertarians:
Reason.com (good youtube video, some articles)
Cato Institute
2. Inherent Right to Self Defense
All persons entitled to defend their lives
A threat to one’s life can only be answered with deadly force
Not granted by society, intrinsic to life
Denial of this is endorsement of cannibalism
Granted by God or by nature
Not everyone believes in god
Not everyone can follow this level of philosophy
3. Constitutional Protection
Is highest law of the land
Any law lower that contradicts is null
Many laws already contradict constitution and should be held null but are not
Committing some wrongs do not mean we need to commit more
Only entity Officers of US swear to support and defend
Supreme Court interprets BUT
Has ruled badly in past i.e. Dred Scott
Usually rules against individual liberty
4. Original Intent
Only way to address constitution
Interpreting as we please renders document meaningless
Must obey as written, guided by intent
If desired can AMMEND text
5. Original Intent: Text Analysis
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.
Assisted by Webster’s dictionary 1828. Constitution drafted 1789 Most founders knew Noah Webster (he edited some Federalist papers), he likely represented their ideas of words, Oxford English Dictionary also an option, but requires pay access.
Well regulated: “Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order” disciplined, capable, well-drilled, well-trained, able
Militia: “The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations” men between ages of 15 and 45 able to bear arms, who drill and are available for call-up
Necessary: “1. That must be; that cannot be otherwise; indispensably requisite. It is necessary that every effect should have a cause. 3. Unavoidable; as a necessary inference or consequence from facts or arguments.”
Free: 2. In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord; as a free state, nation or people. The opposite of how the colonists felt themselves under Britain.
State: 5. A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government. All people united under government.
Right: “10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public. 11. Authority; legal power. We have no right to disturb others in the enjoyment of their religious opinions.” Not subject to restriction.
People: “1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation.” All people, not necessarily united in government.
Keep: “1. To hold; to retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part with; as, to keep a house or a farm; to keep any thing in the memory, mind or heart. 2. To have in custody for security or preservation.” To possess under your own power.
Bear: 2. To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, "they bear him upon the shoulder;", "the eagle beareth them on her wings.“12. To possess and use as power; to exercise; as, to bear sway.” Carry anywhere.
Arms: “1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body. Sire arms, are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, &c. A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.” Not Small Arms, a Stand of Arms, no “except sire arms or crew-served weapons or cannon”.
Shall not be: not may not or maybe not, or might be, or could be
infringed: “Broken; violated; transgresses.”
6. Constitutional Protection: Key Words
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.
Words were chosen carefully.
It is the people, not the state, states or militia whose right shall not to be infringed.
The right is to keep and bear arms, not to access, practice or only keep or only bear.
Arms are not small arms, are not a specific type of arms, there is no prohibition on types arms, understanding of larger weapons with high lethality (mortars and cannon) was widespread
7. Defend Self From Government
Founders had observed war of self defense against government
Understood risk of tyrannical government and wanted to guarantee balance of power
Jefferson even endorsed violent clashes
Modern militias CAN challenge national forces
Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine
Numerical, terrain advantages, capture of equipment and defection from government forces quickly even odds.
8. Defend Self From Government
Governments are scary
They kill more people than criminals BY FAR
In the 20th century most countries herded citizens into concentration camps at one point or another (US to Japanese)
It is hard to herd armed people into camps
Nazi Gun Control legislation enabled their genocides (JPFO studies on this-also link US Gun Control Act of 1968 to the Nazi text directly)
Armed Jews are scarier than disarmed Jews: Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
9. Defend Self From Government
The first gun control law National Firearms Act of 1934 was wrought with problems
Allegedly a revenue raising measure, not a ban
State’s case claimed short barreled shotguns in specific were not militia weapons as not used by any military (falsely)
Ignored that NFA 1934 also taxed Machine Guns, definitely used by Militaries
No defense counsel or brief submitted to Supreme Court
Very tricky, specific, semi-dishonest argument involving serial numbers won case
Even the A-USA in the first gun case before the court acknowledged the 2nd amendment is intended to protect military style weapons.
Registration leads to confiscation, there has been no example of national registration schemes not followed by confiscation of some or all registered weapons
10. Defend Self From Government
Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear Weapons, Autonomous Weapons?
These are scary
People probably should not have them
Maybe we need a constitutional amendment
I would prefer governments not have them either, they are the only ones proven to have used them before, and will likely again.
11. Defend Self From Criminals
It is certain that in addition to protection from government, people are entitled to protect themselves from violence by criminals
This derives from the natural right to self defense
Founders understood the need, living before an era of police, and it is acceptable to argue this as a reason AFTER arguing protection for government (same with hunting)
Police cannot respond fast enough to save lives, just investigate after
Police cannot have legal obligation to protect people’s lives (case law has held this)
12. Defend Self From Criminals
Criminals do not obey laws-hence they are criminals
They will not obey gun laws
Only law abiding citizens will
Ordering the law abiding to disarm creates easy victims: “victim disarmament”
Any area the law abiding citizen’s right to bear arms is infringed will become a target for a criminal: ALL of the recent mass shootings occurred in legal (albeit unconstitutional) ‘gun-free’ zones
Lawful gun owners OFTEN end shootings with minimal or NO casualties.
Not being armed equally to criminals means the law abiding fight at disadvantage
Reload times kill (must have full capacity mags)
Don’t require the law abiding to bring a knife to a gun fight or a pistol to a rifle fight, or fists to an anything fight
13. Bad Arguments
It is bad to end the debate with god or nature and not include the constitution, most people cant handle esoteric, or belief arguments. This argument shuts down debate.
It is bad to interpret the constitution however we please, this renders it useless. This argument shuts down the debate.
It is bad to begin the argument of defense of self from government but not follow it all the way through its logical progression, that all existing gun control law is null as unconstitutional. This surrenders logical consistency and truth.
It is bad to begin to argue pragmatics on crime and self protection without including first protection from government, it is not the intent of the amendment.
It is wrong to even allow the opponents to use the phrases (let alone use them ourselves) ‘hunting and sporting’ these are not the intent of the amendment, do not derive from the right to self defense, and most importantly come from GCA 1968 which came from Nazi Gun Control laws
14. Definitions (Military not Legal)
Vehicles usually require a crew to employ and always require a large crew to maintain
E.G. Tanks, Helicopters, Jets, Armored Cars
Crew Served Weapons (CSW) require 2 or more people to employ
Weapons:
Cannon: CSW Large gun 40mm or larger, usually direct fire (flat trajectory)
Howitzer: CSW Large Indirect fire cannon
Mortar: CSW High angle indirect fire weapon
Grenade launcher: gun that fires grenades usually 37 mm or larger (close range indirect fire)
Machine Gun: CSW (usually) Often Belt Fed Gun that fires as long as the trigger is depressed, Heavy is .50cal Medium is .308cal and light .223 Cal (or near these calibers in soviet arms)
Sniper/Special purpose scoped rifle: CSW (when properly used) Long range (1000+ yd) rifle with a scope usually .308 cal or above
Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR): Medium Range (500-800 yds) rifle with a scope, usually .308 cal
Battle Rifle: Medium Range rifle (0-500 yds)
Assault rifle: Smaller caliber rifle for use by assault force, not suppression, light, close-range (0-300)
Carbine: Smaller caliber or powder compromise between a rifle and a submachine gun used for people not expected to be in combat or who MUST have light weight (paratroopers etc.) (0-300)
Submachine Gun: SMG small carbine that shoots a pistol caliber to limit recoil used for very close work that requires fast fires close assault, room clearing (0-100 yds)
Shotgun: Large bore gun for close range work can be automatic, semi-automatic or pump, usually fed fro m a tubular internal magazine newer models include detachable (0-100 yds)
Machine Pistol: An SMG, or a small SMG that looks like a pistol
Pistol: Semi automatic , automatic , or revolving chambered gun operable with one hand with much less powder than even a carbine round (often in calibers .45 and below)
Parts
Clip: a stripper clip has a number of rounds held together on a piece of metal for pushing into the gun rapidly, there they are stored in an internal magazine, “stripper” clips push the rounds off and into the magazine “en bloc” clips go into the guns magazine themselves
Magazine: Where rounds are stored before firing , internal magazines are rare anymore, much more common are detachable magazines often abbreviated “mags” the only military reason for limiting capacity is weight and unwieldy designs, this usually results in 20 rounds for .308, 30 for .223 and around 8-20 for pistols based on caliber size
It has become a legal debate since someone arbitrarily picked “10” as a magazine capacity limit in California, anti gunners say “high capacity” pro gun folk say “full capacity” or just “mag”
Belt: Disintegrating or reloaded (older or soviet) belts fire all rounds linked together fed from a bag or a box. Machineguns use this
Ammunition Round (Ammo, round or Cartridge) the complete package a gun fires (powder, bullet, casing, primer)
Bullet: Projectile that flies from a gun usually smaller and non-explosive
Casing: the brass that encases the powder, crimps to the bullet and holds the primer, ejects from gun after firing
Round: Individual unit of complete ammunition, includes bullet, casing, powder and primer
Shell: Canon or Howitzer bullet OR shotgun complete usually with plastic casing
Grenade: small explosive, can be designed to be thrown (hand-grenade) or fired from a launcher (it can only be either-or)
Measurements:
Caliber: imperial measures from groove to groove in hundredths of an inch diameter ex. .308
MM: metric measurements of lands to lands in mm, usually followed by a metric measurement of the length of the cartridge ex. 7.62x51
15. Rapid responses to opponents
Mass killings:
Not statistically rising or falling
Occur with similar volume and intensity per capita in nations with intense arms control (wiki rampage killings)
Highest casualty US school killing was in the 1920s, used explosives
Legally obtained automatic weapons have been used in 2 crimes in US history, one by a cop
Cops commit more illegal gun violence than concealed carry permit holders
Why don’t cops get mugged?
Guns are equalizers: 225lb 6’2 man vs 5’9 120lb woman: the outcome only changes when she has a gun
16. Pro Gun Organizations (Biased list)
Revolutionary War Veterans of America
Teach the historical connection between guns and the revolution, skills necessary to shoot
“no politics after 1776”
Gun Owners of America
Second biggest Pro gun lobby, second highest profile, very libertarian
“The only no-compromise gun lobby In Washington” –Ron Paul
National Association for Gun Rights
Rocky Mountain roots, anti-UN streak
“No compromise” est. 2000
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Scholarship on gun control and genocide, especially Nazism
“America’s most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership”
Citizens for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Strong critic of Obama Policies, especially fast and furious
“The Common Sense Gun Lobby”
National Rifle Association
The big dog, huge money (even its opponents admit the bulk of this comes from individual gun owners)
More willing to compromise than the above, but being pushed away from compromise by the above
Founded by Union Army Officers to ensure marksmanship for future soldiers
Independent Firearms Owners Association
Enforce the laws we have now, don’t persecute gun owners, NRA has gone too conservative because of the above
“Effective Solutions for Complex Criminal Justice Problems”
Libertarians:
Reason.com (good youtube video, some articles)
Cato Institute
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 152
SFC Byron Perry
A1C Jj Birchard - that meant at the time, in good working order. How can you have a militia in good working order with them having weapons?
(0)
(0)
Sgt Mervyn Russell
It's the hearts of man that need to amended, not the 2nd amendment. Psamlms 10 ו [Waw]
10 Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more;+
You will look at where they were,
And they will not be there.+
11 But the meek will possess the earth,+
And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.+ This is a promise. from Jehovah God.
10 Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more;+
You will look at where they were,
And they will not be there.+
11 But the meek will possess the earth,+
And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.+ This is a promise. from Jehovah God.
(0)
(0)
The Bill of Rights was intended to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment has this as its primary purpose, and was written in order to prevent the kind of usurpations the nation experienced experienced under British rule. Since human nature has not changed, this need has also not changed.
We see a lawless POTUS currently in office that writes or ignores laws at his personal whim, and feels unconstrained by our Constitution. This is EXACTLY the sort of abuse of coercive power by the government that our Constitution was designed to protect the people against.
This is not the time to limit or abolish the protections afforded us by the Second Amendment - or any of the others in our Bill of Rights.
We see a lawless POTUS currently in office that writes or ignores laws at his personal whim, and feels unconstrained by our Constitution. This is EXACTLY the sort of abuse of coercive power by the government that our Constitution was designed to protect the people against.
This is not the time to limit or abolish the protections afforded us by the Second Amendment - or any of the others in our Bill of Rights.
(146)
(0)
SPC Robert Nasiff
LTC Joe Anderson - If you really don't care about me correcting your grammar, than why are you complaining about it and threatening to grammar check me??? Do you ever read what you write? It obviously does bother you!
(0)
(0)
SPC Robert Nasiff
LTC Joe Anderson - You act and talk like Nikki Haley! Proof is in the pudding! You are in as much denial as she is!
(0)
(0)
SPC Robert Nasiff
LTC Joe Anderson - I am incapable of being upset over mere conversations on this blog. I just find it humorous that those like yourself get all heated up and emotional. You see joe, your belief in a myth--god--is an emotional assuming belief! As for me, I have no such fact less religious or godly baggage. I just find it funny that others like yourself do. But hey, I do understand that people like yourself need a godly crutch as I guess it would be lonely for you in your life otherwise. The god thing offers a fictional hope to those that must need it. And as you pointed out, there are 3 billion people worldwide that seem to need it. I am glad I am in the majority of about 5 billion who have stable lives and don't need a god. Evidently the happy hunting ground is in your future. Remember the soul is a myth! Nice family by the way. hope the lacrosse game went well.
(0)
(0)
SPC Robert Nasiff
I'm fine. golfed this weekend. got a half foot snow on the ground now. The mother of my kids fell yesterday and fractured her hip. had the operation this morning. Now I am dealing with that. Glad to see your kids are doing OK. Have a great Tuesday and on!!
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P. No. The second amendment, protects the right of self defense. Having the right of self defense is the right to preserve one's life and to preserve other's lives. The right to self defense also protects the right to free press, free speech, and the freedom of assembly. Not having a armed citizens prevents us from ensuring our other rights remain intact and opens us up to having other rights removed.
(110)
(0)
SSG John C Quigley II
SPC Robert Nasiff - I got that figure from Biden himself as he was bragging about him forcing the firing of the Lawyer who was working to prove that Burisma was doing a number of criminal operations while Biden's son was working there, with zero knowledge of there operations and earning BIG bucks. Anyway he demanded they fire that lawyer or forfeit the 6 billion that had been approved, he was the one who was to get the funds to Ukraine. The fired the man, and gave him 500 million to help grease the skids to get the money.
(0)
(0)
SPC Robert Nasiff
SSG John C Quigley II - Proof?? If that really happened, how come the house investigation has not mentioned it? No proof is why. All lies and you know it. The administration including Biden and the European Union were trying to get the Ukraine investigator fired because he was corrupt and not doing his job investigation Burisma. And Biden's son did not get $500 million. He earned $11 million working for Burisma! Just goes to show you that your sources are incorrect.
(0)
(0)
SPC Robert Nasiff
SSG John C Quigley II - And the supposed CIA inside man, Alexander Smirnov, Has already been arrested and charged after he admitted he was lying about the Biden ties to Burisma. And admitted to working with the Russians to try and discredit Biden. But you obviously don't seem to have read the latest news and developments regarding the House impeachment inquiry and how it has failed to offer any impeachable proof. I am sure though that you are disappointed with that. Remember, Smirnov was the House's big big catch witness in proving Biden wrong doing. Thanks for your service.
(0)
(0)
SPC Robert Nasiff
So no, this country was not founded on Judeo Christian principles. As Jefferson once said, there needed to be a wall between religion and government. By the way, Sigmund Freud of Jewish upbringing was basically an atheist. When in college, I looked through some writings of his, and especially his "Why War". His opinion was that first of all, man's two most overriding instincts are sex and aggression! Without sex, our species would not exist. And without aggression, we would not have survived as a species. And why man's instincts continually lead to wars. and each war is worse than the previous one as man finds new ways to kill amass! And you should read his theories about the 10 commandments which he believes are unattainable. For instance, Love they enemy is pretty hard to do if that person just killed your family. Thou shalt not kill--sure right. Regarding sex, yes some laws are based on the bible: Like you are not supposed to have sex until you are married and you cannot covet another man's wife. And of course civil law outlaws aggression basically, so where does man's instinct for aggression lead him? Boxing, fights etc. And not to forget the ultimate aggression-- war --where man not only can legally kill, but become a hero for doing so. And the more of the enemy he kills the more honors he receives.
A great book to read is "All Quiet on the Western Front"! Really a pacifist anti war novel. It was the first book banned and burned by the Nazi. when they came to power in 1933, Erich Maria Remarque, the author of all quiet on the western front fled with his wife to Switzerland after they were warned that the Gestapo planned to murder them. In 1943, his sister Elfriede Scholz, was betrayed by her neighbor and turned over to the Gestapo, where after a short trial, in which she was charged with crimes against the state, was beheaded. It is a good read, as the author wrote about his experiences in the 1st WW. Freud did not hold out hope for man never having another war. As the WW2 proved his point in that it was even more deadly than WW1.
A great book to read is "All Quiet on the Western Front"! Really a pacifist anti war novel. It was the first book banned and burned by the Nazi. when they came to power in 1933, Erich Maria Remarque, the author of all quiet on the western front fled with his wife to Switzerland after they were warned that the Gestapo planned to murder them. In 1943, his sister Elfriede Scholz, was betrayed by her neighbor and turned over to the Gestapo, where after a short trial, in which she was charged with crimes against the state, was beheaded. It is a good read, as the author wrote about his experiences in the 1st WW. Freud did not hold out hope for man never having another war. As the WW2 proved his point in that it was even more deadly than WW1.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Roland Cooper
Man, what a stupid and misleading message. And from a Captain? Who in their right mind would think that Jews purchasing rifles and handguns could push back the entire German Army or other disenfranchised people who are being overrun as a part of ethnic cleansing??? This thought process is scary and disappointing. I guess if you live in a rural town and the entire population is say... 400? You might believe that keeping an AR15 by the door is necessary. People who live in medium to large cities have Neighborhood Watch/patrol, home security system, city police, county police, overnight lights on garage and front door, maybe a dog and perhaps a shotgun?
This would all be in the name of self/home protection. I would never in my wildest dreams try to lock and load to fend off U.S. Military. But why would I really ever need to feel that way unless I am paranoid with low self-esteem issues.
This would all be in the name of self/home protection. I would never in my wildest dreams try to lock and load to fend off U.S. Military. But why would I really ever need to feel that way unless I am paranoid with low self-esteem issues.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Roland Cooper
Capt Jeff S. - I don't see the Viagra stand? How do you know if it is Trump Rally unless they are handing out FREE 30-day trials for Viagra? Make Attorneys Get Attorneys {MAGA}
(0)
(0)
SSgt Roland Cooper
Capt Jeff S. - Isn't that picture from like 2-3 years ago? Why keep reliving the past? Oh, that's right... The MAGA Supreme Leader can't move forward because he is constantly in denial and whole world is against him...
(0)
(0)
I think it should be constitutional carry in all States. If you can buy you can carry concealed. I would definitely support continued background checks. I also would eliminate no carry zones, they do not make sense. If someone is carrying legally why would we not trust them to act responsibly? If they are criminals your not going to stop them with the law anyway. And I think the same blood alcohol levels as driving should be enforced when carrying. If you are to tipsy to drive you damn sure should not be armed! IMHO.
(48)
(0)
SSgt Roland Cooper
SPC Robert Nasiff - Robert, thanks for your feedback. On July 3rd our country logged 345 mass shootings so far this year. I think we can add at another 4-5 mass shootings due to July 4 holiday. I was not aware that July 4 has the most mass shootings when compared to all other holidays. Something is really wrong when the holiday in which we commemorate the signing of the Declaration of Independence traditionally has the most mass shootings. The 2nd amendment needs to be amended and brought up to 2023 standards and expectations. Like it or not, American society has evolved and many of our fellow citizens try to solve personal problems with loaded firearms. In the enterprise space - if your competition is kicking your butt and growing revenue you try to do a better job to beat your competition. Pretty simple stuff. The 2nd amendment has outlived its usefulness and does not improve our quality of life. Our country should pull together like other countries around the world. We should strive to improve the 2nd amendment to ensure it truly reflects the values of the majority of our country.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Neil Foster
SSgt Roland Cooper - Gun shows in MOST states now require background checks/waiting period. They have licensed dealers there for that purpose.
(0)
(0)
Reapeal every gun law on the books, get rid of the ATF and you will see a drop in crime. Start with the NFA of 1934 and go from there till you get to the present day. Get rid of every states gun laws as it violates the national constitution...
(41)
(0)
Sgt Clarence Couch
Sgt Neil Foster "That is EXACTLY my point. Punishment for violating the law is loss of your rights. Regulations are assuming that EVERYONE is guilty until proven innocent": NOPE, Bad reasoning. Breaking the law is a CHOICE If you don't break the law- No waiver of rights.
Regulation of rights is NOT the same thing and is NOT protected by the Constitution. Don't take it out of context. I responded to someone saying that Open carry of a gun is a right. The Constitution says NOTHING about HOW to carry, so it is not a right and can be regulated. Let go of the idea that any REGULATION IS WRONG. You must be a libertarian. FYI, that is a theory that has NEVER been put into practice, because it's a very BAD IDEA and won't work.
Regulation of rights is NOT the same thing and is NOT protected by the Constitution. Don't take it out of context. I responded to someone saying that Open carry of a gun is a right. The Constitution says NOTHING about HOW to carry, so it is not a right and can be regulated. Let go of the idea that any REGULATION IS WRONG. You must be a libertarian. FYI, that is a theory that has NEVER been put into practice, because it's a very BAD IDEA and won't work.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Neil Foster
Sgt Clarence Couch - Regulation/licensing of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT is guilty until proven innocent. I neve said that that the government can not restrict the rights of people who abuse the right.
As far "Constitutional Carry", that refers to STATE LAWS that allow unrestricted carry... NOT the US Constitution
As far "Constitutional Carry", that refers to STATE LAWS that allow unrestricted carry... NOT the US Constitution
(0)
(0)
Sgt Clarence Couch
Sgt Neil Foster - OK, repeating the same falsity isn't ever going to make it true. What, did you play hookie on civics day? For the last time (and then I'm going to say that we'll have to agree to disagree). ANY form of prosecution and/or conviction, or "proving anything" happens in the judicial branch, in a court of law, at a trial, according to the constitution, NOT in the Legislative nor Executive branch.
FYI, we live in a society. AN American Society and we live under the guidance of the Constitution. Now, the Founders designed it so that it be flexible and can be changed via amendments.The reason for that is they intended for it to last for, well, forever, by the logic that it reflects the current society, it will. One American society ended slavery and freed the slaves,.and another American society banned alcohol and then saw the error and rescinded it. Yet another allowed women to vote and own land and businesses, etc. Yet another gave more civil rights to blacks. ALL done by amendments, per the Constitution.
The OTHER thing this American Society agrees on, that's IN the Constitution is that there be 3 Branches of govt.: ONE makes the laws, the other interprets them and the other runs the govt. NOw in making the laws, each and every law names the law and then the consequence for not obeying the law, after a run through the judicial system and a trial and a conviction. STILL, the accused's rights are observed,. from the Miranda to the arraignment to the free lawyer, to the speedy trial, and appeal and Society agrees that the Supreme Court is where the buck ends.
Lastly,this American Society agrees with SCOTUS that our rights CAN be regulated: 1A -you may NOT yell fire in a crowded room, you may NOT incite riots in public or engage in hate speech, etc. THAT is regulation and it has NOTHING to do with "guilty until proven innocent". 2A - you may NOT own a tank or fighter jet, etc. Felons and mentally ill may NOT have access to guns, etc. THAT is regulation and it had NOTHING to do with "guilty until proven innocent" That is your warped, misguided, cynical opinion, NOT the TRUTH. BTW, not too late to become a truth seeker.
Lastly, I was in the USMC Aviation and do you know the difference between a AF jet mech and Marine jet mech? The AF has 100 men who each will work on one part on the engine..The Marine jet mech will rebuild the whole engine,.
.
FYI, we live in a society. AN American Society and we live under the guidance of the Constitution. Now, the Founders designed it so that it be flexible and can be changed via amendments.The reason for that is they intended for it to last for, well, forever, by the logic that it reflects the current society, it will. One American society ended slavery and freed the slaves,.and another American society banned alcohol and then saw the error and rescinded it. Yet another allowed women to vote and own land and businesses, etc. Yet another gave more civil rights to blacks. ALL done by amendments, per the Constitution.
The OTHER thing this American Society agrees on, that's IN the Constitution is that there be 3 Branches of govt.: ONE makes the laws, the other interprets them and the other runs the govt. NOw in making the laws, each and every law names the law and then the consequence for not obeying the law, after a run through the judicial system and a trial and a conviction. STILL, the accused's rights are observed,. from the Miranda to the arraignment to the free lawyer, to the speedy trial, and appeal and Society agrees that the Supreme Court is where the buck ends.
Lastly,this American Society agrees with SCOTUS that our rights CAN be regulated: 1A -you may NOT yell fire in a crowded room, you may NOT incite riots in public or engage in hate speech, etc. THAT is regulation and it has NOTHING to do with "guilty until proven innocent". 2A - you may NOT own a tank or fighter jet, etc. Felons and mentally ill may NOT have access to guns, etc. THAT is regulation and it had NOTHING to do with "guilty until proven innocent" That is your warped, misguided, cynical opinion, NOT the TRUTH. BTW, not too late to become a truth seeker.
Lastly, I was in the USMC Aviation and do you know the difference between a AF jet mech and Marine jet mech? The AF has 100 men who each will work on one part on the engine..The Marine jet mech will rebuild the whole engine,.
.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Clarence Couch
Sgt Neil Foster -"As far "Constitutional Carry", that refers to STATE LAWS that allow unrestricted carry... NOT the US Constitution" WRONG, the federal govt tries to ban guns all the time- NFA of '34, '68,'94, etc.
(0)
(0)
A firearm in the hands of a law abiding citizen is not a threat to any other law abiding citizen or a fair governnment. A citizen who decides to harm others, steal or attack the goverment will find a tool to do it with. A hateful, twisted mind is more dangerous than an inanimate object
(34)
(0)
Sgt Neil Foster
SPC Robert Nasiff - And when you violate the law, the punishment is LOSING SOME RIGHTS. So what is your point?
(0)
(0)
SPC Robert Nasiff
Sgt Neil Foster - So, if you violate the law by shoplifting a couple of cans of vegetables, and sent to prison, You lose your right to own guns??? hmmm Interesting! So, that is your point?? You just proved my point that laws can be created to limit the sale and use of firearms! :)) Thank you for your service.
(0)
(0)
SPC Robert Nasiff
Wow, as I thought, a brother in arms showing disrespect to another! Do me a favor if you can't control your emotions and wish to insult others: Stop replying to my comments if you disagree with them enough to degrade and insult. I don't post here to insult my fellow brothers in arms, as I try to respect you all, whether I disagree with you or not.
And actually, in some states, if you break the law for even simple shoplifting and sentenced to prison/jail, you are classified as a criminal and not allowed to own firearms or vote. Or did you not know that??I am just pointing out that like such cases, it is possible for creating laws stopping people from owning guns!
Thank you for your service Neil!!!
And actually, in some states, if you break the law for even simple shoplifting and sentenced to prison/jail, you are classified as a criminal and not allowed to own firearms or vote. Or did you not know that??I am just pointing out that like such cases, it is possible for creating laws stopping people from owning guns!
Thank you for your service Neil!!!
(0)
(0)
Criminals don't follow the law! If the government doesn't have plans to declare martial law or further infringe on out rights they have no need to fear from law abiding citizens having weapons to defend themselves.
(31)
(0)
SSgt Roland Cooper
People on the right tend to be very paranoid. No, the government is NOT coming for your guns. Fellow USA citizens feel we can make our country safer with common sense gun laws. The 2nd amendment is an amendment that needs to amended to fall in line with the year 2023. No need to be freak out. Many people on the left own firearms and also hunt. Step back for a moment and think about the 45K+ American citizens who will die from firearms this year. We are at the midpoint for year 2023 and we have 400+ mass shootings. Simply put, WE have a problem. Look at all the other countries around planet earth who have 100's of millions and/or billions of citizens and do a much a better job than the USA when it comes to common sense gun laws that keep their citizens safe. Do you believe fellow USA citizens have more anger management issues, mental health issues or are criminals than ALL the other countries around the world? No, life in the USA is not unique. WE should step up as adults and work together to ensure citizens and visitors to the USA feel safe as they do around the world. Our problem is that we have 300+ million guns across the country and very WEAK gun laws. By the way... I am a gun owner and do not fear that Uncle Sam is coming for my gun.
(0)
(0)
Excellent explanation.
To the question itself. Does the 2a need amending itself? The only exclusions I can possibly agree with would be that of WMDs, however it is far easier to regulate materials & acts, than the weapons themselves.
I have slowly adopted the following debate stance when it comes to the Protections (et al) of "Screw you." Any time, anyone, wants to infringe on them which is usually started with the phrases of:
1) there should be a law
2) why is it allowed
3) the government should
I simply and quickly respond with "Screw you" to which I am called an @%^hole, asked why won't I listed to their reasoning, etc. I then proceed to listen to their argument, in depth and repeat "Screw you" with a far more in-depth rebuttal.
I think this should be the standard response to all the clauses of the Constitution.
To the question itself. Does the 2a need amending itself? The only exclusions I can possibly agree with would be that of WMDs, however it is far easier to regulate materials & acts, than the weapons themselves.
I have slowly adopted the following debate stance when it comes to the Protections (et al) of "Screw you." Any time, anyone, wants to infringe on them which is usually started with the phrases of:
1) there should be a law
2) why is it allowed
3) the government should
I simply and quickly respond with "Screw you" to which I am called an @%^hole, asked why won't I listed to their reasoning, etc. I then proceed to listen to their argument, in depth and repeat "Screw you" with a far more in-depth rebuttal.
I think this should be the standard response to all the clauses of the Constitution.
(26)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
SPC Dawn Appelberg (Johnson) - I only correct you to keep the wrong kind of people from jumping all over you.
It's not "more people killed ..... than FIREARMS", it's "than RIFLES". Handguns are used in many homicides, but rifles and shotguns are rarely murder weapons.
I once calculated that if 25% of the "murder rifles" used were so-called "assault weapons", then then there would be ~9 times more murders by "hands and feet" as weapons than those nasty "assault weapons".
It's not "more people killed ..... than FIREARMS", it's "than RIFLES". Handguns are used in many homicides, but rifles and shotguns are rarely murder weapons.
I once calculated that if 25% of the "murder rifles" used were so-called "assault weapons", then then there would be ~9 times more murders by "hands and feet" as weapons than those nasty "assault weapons".
(0)
(0)
Sgt Joseph Baker
CW3 Harvey K. - You attempt to correct the assertion made by SPC Appelberg regarding firearms not being the most used form of homicidal violence by making a distinction between handguns and rifles. I believe her assertion to be correct that firearms of all types are not the most used weapons, and rifles being used in murders is particularly low despite the jaded press coverage. But most inhabitants of this planet that murder each other do it far more often with a knife or a blunt instrument, simply because they can't afford or don't have access to firearms. Of course, that means the weak or unarmed end up being the victim to the strong or better armed. I would suggest you check out the video I mentioned in my posting, "No. 1 with a Bullet" on YouTube to get a more complete perspective on homicidal violence. You might find my posting earlier as I attempt to focus on the realities of violence in the world and the effect of gun control on your personal safety.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Sgt Joseph Baker - You are apparently mixing your concern with world-wide data with USA data on homicide weapon statistics. Your Youtube video citation, combined with your reference to “ jaded press coverage” seems to be a combining of international homicide and national homicide concerns. I have little concern for gun bans, “gun control”, and homicide rates in foreign countries, where I have no hope (short of war) of improving that situation. My concern is what is going on in my own country.
I did not attempt to correct the incorrect statement of SPC Appelberg in regard to USA statistics, I accomplished the same.
To spell it out:
Based on the FBI figures for “Homicides by weapon” for 2012, (latest info I have found) there were a total of 12,765 homicides in the U S A.
Of that total, 8,855 or 69% were committed by means of “firearms” of all types. (Handguns were reported as used in 6,371 homicides, or 50% of TOTAL killings, and 72% of the total of “FIREARMS” killings) *
Those killed by “knives or cutting instruments” numbered 1,589. Those killed by “Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)” numbered 518. The total reported in these FBI categories of weapons (much broader categories than “ people killed with knives and hammers” claimed by SPC Appelberg) --- total 2,107.
So we have a claim that :
“There are more people killed with knives and hammers every year than firearms”,
when the FBI states that “firearms” were used to kill 8,855 people in 2012.
The same source (not perfect, but far more objective than VPC or NRA data) reports the combined
“Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)” dead at 2,107.
The claim “There are more people killed with knives and hammers every year than firearms” has no mathematical basis for what happens in the USA.
* It should be noted that there were 1,749 “Firearms, type not stated” in these figures, and 778 cases where “Other weapons or weapons not stated” were reported to the FBI.
I suggest you do not use Youtube as a reference. It may be perfect truth, but it lacks standing. No scholar would cite a statement in a comic book to back up a claim.
You would do well to peruse the following to gain a fuller understanding of the situation here in America.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls
Semper Fi.
I did not attempt to correct the incorrect statement of SPC Appelberg in regard to USA statistics, I accomplished the same.
To spell it out:
Based on the FBI figures for “Homicides by weapon” for 2012, (latest info I have found) there were a total of 12,765 homicides in the U S A.
Of that total, 8,855 or 69% were committed by means of “firearms” of all types. (Handguns were reported as used in 6,371 homicides, or 50% of TOTAL killings, and 72% of the total of “FIREARMS” killings) *
Those killed by “knives or cutting instruments” numbered 1,589. Those killed by “Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)” numbered 518. The total reported in these FBI categories of weapons (much broader categories than “ people killed with knives and hammers” claimed by SPC Appelberg) --- total 2,107.
So we have a claim that :
“There are more people killed with knives and hammers every year than firearms”,
when the FBI states that “firearms” were used to kill 8,855 people in 2012.
The same source (not perfect, but far more objective than VPC or NRA data) reports the combined
“Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)” dead at 2,107.
The claim “There are more people killed with knives and hammers every year than firearms” has no mathematical basis for what happens in the USA.
* It should be noted that there were 1,749 “Firearms, type not stated” in these figures, and 778 cases where “Other weapons or weapons not stated” were reported to the FBI.
I suggest you do not use Youtube as a reference. It may be perfect truth, but it lacks standing. No scholar would cite a statement in a comic book to back up a claim.
You would do well to peruse the following to gain a fuller understanding of the situation here in America.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls
Semper Fi.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Joseph Baker
I will check it out because I like to stay on top of things. But her statement still is true, far less people on this planet killed by guns than knives and hammers. She did not limit her statement to the U.S. If she had, she might be incorrect based on the statistics you provided, but she didn't, so she is correct. The reason the YouTube video I recommended is valuable is it provides context on the human condition, and America in particular as compared to violence in other countries. I see that you don't care about the other countries, and I generally agree with you. But my point is that if we lose our 2nd amendment and natural law rights to self-protection, at least in the form of firearms, the result will not be a safer, less-violent culture. Since 90% of the firearm-related deaths (which generally includes criminal perps who get shot while in commission of a crime, not just innocent victims) are not mass-shootings but targeted killing of particular individuals, the only real change you will see in the statistics is that American killing will switch to machetes and clubs like much of the rest of the world (which is vastly more violent than America). The result of which is that the weak, the feminine, the aged, the disabled, the you-name-the-disadvantaged will have to accept being the victims and allow natural selection to lead them to extinction, for the firearm is unique in it's simplicity and ability to level the playing field. It allows the 100 lb. female to protect herself from the 280 lb. male assailant. Most of the people in government who continually seek gun-control measures know this to be true, that violence will not stop just because we take guns out of the equation. So safety is a red-herring. The real reason they want to take guns away is precisely because of the role of the 2nd amendment in protecting the other rights. They can never create a totalitarian regime, at least not without a fight as long as the populace has guns. The importance of putting American violence in context with violence in other countries of all forms is that it discredits those who take their favorite statistic out of the pile and hide the rest, like our media loves to do. I appreciate that you express the desire to make things better in America, but many people do not share your view of 'improvement' as being an improvement, and their rights are enshrined in the Constitution. They feel that having firearms is an 'improvement' over nations where that right is not recognized. Just as other people's favorite rights are protected in the Constitution as well, but not by a piece of paper but because the power and the right that the 2nd amendment acknowledges, that the populace has the right to self-goverment by choosing their masters, or rejecting those in power and removing them by force when they don't protect the rights of the people. Both of being veterans means we have both put ourselves in that place where protections of persons and their natural rights are endangered, so I think we have something important in common there. Thanks again for the reference which I will check out and add to my repertoire of facts and data.
(0)
(0)
I would have a helluva lot more respect for the anti-gun crowd if they would actually propose getting what they want via an actual constitutional amendment. Their current tactic is to use murders for propaganda, try to pass laws and worry about the constitutionality of them later, and/or get them passed by judicial fiat (which also means they want to stack the judiciary with judges chosen by ideology rather than qualifications).
(20)
(0)
(2)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
It is because today's American operates on emotion, not rationality. If we had more rationality and less emotion, we might have more laws that work and a government that cares.
(2)
(0)
SGT Kerry Sommers
Why is the US the only country that has this problem. We are averaging 2 mass shooting everyday. We must be doing something wrong? I would love to hear a cogent answer to this question.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next


Firearms and Guns
Shooting (Sport)
Constitution
2nd Amendment

