America and the gun

[Revoltingest]

I don't see how that does anything but reinforce my point.

I'm not arguing...just answering.....& being agreeable.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's just that the "that" here did not fall under the provision of the 2nd, being "well regulated." You want to retain a Constitutional liberty? Then you have to abide by the requirements it sets forth.

No problem abiding that I know of.

Okay, to make it clearer, although a bit wordier, here is how it would read with the unexpressed inference included.

A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As in logic a "therefore" statement is a dependent one. It depends on a premise for its truth, validity, and raison d'être; and the premise here is "A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State."​

They could have worded it that way. If they had, then things could be different.
But they chose otherwise, likely because of this "unexpressed inference" made by Jefferson:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. I would rather be exposed to
the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those
who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather
to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)"
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
And so on......
So as you can see from the historical context, your argument about the 2nd becoming a "curiosity" was anticipated & addressed.
It's clearly about more than just militias. The Constitution is what it says, not what some think it should say.

And I don't think any such granting has ever been given, except perhaps in time of war or national emergency.

Au contraire. Gov't regularly seizes power not authorized by the Constitution.
Example:
Check the Kelo decision. The USSC completely reinvented the 5th Amendment to say that property can be taken for any public benefit
(eg, a new owner who would pay a higher tax), not just for public use. This goes against both the strict wording & the history behind the 5th.

But I'm fine with the amendment, but not with the way some choose to read it. That it's antiquated and remains on the books is a curiosity, but no more than that.

Let us hope that the gov't doesn't declare other rights to be an historical "curiosity".

Let it remain, don't let it remain, I don't care, just don't try to pervert it.

And I would ask the same of thee.

 

[Thief]

Not "needs" no and to be honest I wasn't entirely clear what position you were taking in the debate. I'll give you a response if it'll make you feel better anyway.

I think it's a bad thing to base such wide ranging laws on the basis of a tiny number of extreme incidents. They should be carefully considered on the balance of all the facts, not a knee-jerk reaction to tragic news reports (as has sadly happened here in the UK too).

There is no way to know if, had there been armed civilians at the incidents you describe that the outcome would have been any better or worse.

Switzerland is somewhat unique. The common rifle ownership isn't about personal home defence but as part of their national service. One benefit of this is a level of training in handling the weapons. I think there is also a significance in the fact it is rifles rather than pistols. It also shows that simple gun ownership statistics aren't the be-all and end-all in this debate but that the cultural factors are also significant.

I think invasion of the country is irrelevant since the US has (I believe) the biggest and best equipped military forces in the world. If any invading force gets past that, civilians with light arms aren't going to make all that much different.

That's a good response.

How about personal defense?
I know there are people that cannot be stopped.
I've met them.
A gun would be the only means to stop them.

And a fellow black belt did ask another black belt...
What does it take to stop Sensei 'Thief'?
(I over heard them talking.)
"Hit a nerve!"

Passing a law to limit who gets to defend themselves and who doesn't...
probably won't happen.

In all fairness though...
I've seen one report of numbers wherein...
All countries that have guns, have gun play resulting in death in double digits.
America has the dubious distinction of high triple digit fatality.

But I don't think it's the firearm, that is to blame.
Perhaps greater freedom comes with greater difficulties.

 

[Skwim]

They could have worded it that way. If they had, then things could be different.

How so? The form of expression, with an unwritten "sentence connector," does not change the meaning. It's no different than saying "It's raining outside, wear your raincoat." and "It's raining outside, therefore wear your raincoat." The reason to wear one's raincoat is dependent on rain outside. No rain, then no reason to wear a raincoat. Not going to belong to a well regulated militia, then there's no Constitutional lawful right to keep and bear arms.

But they chose otherwise, likely because of this "unexpressed inference" made by Jefferson:"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

This is considered a spurious quote. It has not been confirmed to be that of Jefferson. As THIS site says,

"Jefferson did say, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]." That statement can be found in his second draft of the Virginia Constitution (Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 1:353). However, it frequently appears with the unconfirmed quote in question tacked on to the end. It is not a genuine Jefferson quote as far as we know."
​

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

This was in reference to the limits of Governmental Aid and Assistance
(Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782) and promts a, so . . . ?

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. “

(Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791) Okay, but another, so . . . ?

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those
who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)"

Unfortunately, the peril of owning guns does not reside only with those who are "inclined or determined to commit crimes." Accidents, suicides, and crimes of opportunity and passion are common misuses of fire arms.

So as you can see from the historical context, your argument about the 2nd becoming a "curiosity" was anticipated & addressed.

The only relevant quote was the one in dispute. Jefferson may have said it, but it doesn't look like it.

It's clearly about more than just militias.

Of course. It's also about security, the right of the people, a free state, and infringement.

The Constitution is what it says, not what some think it should say.

I couldn't agree more.

Au contraire. Gov't regularly seizes power not authorized by the Constitution.
Example:
Check the Kelo decision. The USSC completely reinvented the 5th Amendment to say that property can be taken for any public benefit
(eg, a new owner who would pay a higher tax), not just for public use. This goes against both the strict wording & the history behind the 5th.

Just to be clear, I did say "I don't think." If there are, in fact, such incidents then I change my "don't think" to a "perhaps" (I don't have the ambition to check out the Kelo decision.)

 

[Revoltingest]

This horse had been beaten to death.

 

[HonestJoe]

How about personal defense? I know there are people that cannot be stopped.

A gun isn't the be-all and end-all though (especially in the hands of a random civilian). In some situations it may well be a benefit, in some situations it won't make any significant difference and in some situations it will make things much worse.

Passing a law to limit who gets to defend themselves and who doesn't... probably won't happen.

We're not talking about that. We're talking about laws (and associated culture) on possession, management and use of privately owned firearms. There is a huge range of consequences from this and identifying the debate so singularly is counter-productive.

But I don't think it's the firearm, that is to blame.
Perhaps greater freedom comes with greater difficulties.

With all rights there are implicit responsibilities and maybe if our societies had a stronger view of that, gun ownership would have fewer issues. Regardless of what the right is though, we know a significant number of people will never take on their responsibilities. That is why this kind of thing should also be a matter of practical balance over fundamental principals.

 

[Thief]

A gun isn't the be-all and end-all though (especially in the hands of a random civilian). In some situations it may well be a benefit, in some situations it won't make any significant difference and in some situations it will make things much worse.

A little generalized here.

We're not talking about that. We're talking about laws (and associated culture) on possession, management and use of privately owned firearms. There is a huge range of consequences from this and identifying the debate so singularly is counter-productive.

Yes we are talking about that.....and I suggest target practice as management.

With all rights there are implicit responsibilities and maybe if our societies had a stronger view of that, gun ownership would have fewer issues. Regardless of what the right is though, we know a significant number of people will never take on their responsibilities. That is why this kind of thing should also be a matter of practical balance over fundamental principals.

You would make an excellent politician.
You skirt each point with vague maybes..... and you do it well....
Gun ownership should....must....continue.

 

[HonestJoe]

You would make an excellent politician.
You skirt each point with vague maybes..... and you do it well....

My point is that the subject is full of vague maybes over lots of different areas as a challenge to the people focusing on certainties in specific areas. The key difference between me and a politician (and a lot of the other posters) is that I'm not claiming to have the right answer that solves all of the problems. I'm not even convinced there is one.

Gun ownership should....must....continue.

But why "must" it? Because a centuries old document written for an entirely different nation says so, because privately owned guns are a perfect solution to one issue or because on the balance of all the factors, you think the positive outweighs the negative?

I only see the latter as a logically legitimate reason but it requires recognition of all of the consequences and the complexity and difficulties in measuring and comparing the good, bad and ugly. In that context, I'm not sure you can get as far as must, only "probably should (with a whole list of exceptions and conditions)" at best.

 

[blackout]

I'm just curious,

why is there a difference between people defending themSelves against
people from outside their country
and
people defending themSelves against people
from within their country.
I guess what I'm saying is,
anyone could potentially be the "enemy".
Why do people seem to have this nationalistic idea
that it is reasonable to kill an invading enemy,
but not an enemy who already happens to be on the inside.

I guess I just don't understand why one kind of defence from enemy
(whatever/whoever that may be)
is generally sanctioned
and then all others
are generally condemned or tabbooed.

Why are some wars acceptable to wage,
and others, not.
Why are some Self defences, defensable...
and others not.

(note: I'm not addressing gun ownership here exactly,
but what is to me, a larger, but still related question.)

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Sure. But as things stand, we can legally possess fully auto weapons too (with
the proper license). "Reasonable" covers a very broad & contentious area, one
which I'm loathe to define with any precision.

Yeah. The catch is, though, unless we're going to allow people to legally carry nuclear arms, we have to set the limit somewhere.

Question: Why would a fully automatic weapon be needed for protecting oneself from animals? Are we talking about a stampede of dire wolves here? "HOSE 'EM DOWN, BOYS! HERE COME A HUNNERD DIRE WOLVES!"

In the People's Republic of Ann Arbor, I rub shoulders with gun grabbers & militia types.

Ahhhhh.

 

[Thief]

Been proof reading this thread.....

Did not see any address to the actual nature of the item in question.

Guns are an invention to resolve the problem at hand.
That problem at hand might vary...
politically...religiously...economically....
socially.

But if the problem is presented as harm to you,
the answer might not be verbal.

Some problems are not dispelled by clever words and skillful argument.