Jump to content

Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry


Recommended Posts

Based on the number of guns in the hands of the people, it sure looks like there is strong support for a right to own a gun. Trying to convince those people that they don't have that right, and basing that notion on some interpretation of the constitution that would now relinquish that right, is just down right silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game, set, match.

 

Let's not forget that the only way for a State to have an armed militia is for the PEOPLE of that state to have Arms. You can't have an armed militia without armed citizens.

 

Trying to argue otherwise is foolish.

 

Yeah, we win debates by using what WASN"T put in the Constitution instead of what WAS. NOT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the number of guns in the hands of the people, it sure looks like there is strong support for a right to own a gun. Trying to convince those people that they don't have that right, and basing that notion on some interpretation of the constitution that would now relinquish that right, is just down right silly.

 

Actually the statistics I found indicate that individual ownership is declining but those who do own have more firearms than in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the original 2nd Amendment text as proposed by James Madison on June 8, 1789.....

 

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

 

Here is a link presenting the history of the Bill of Rights. Feel free to find anything (outside of your own opinion) that suggests ANY Founder's opinion that the right to keep and bear arms is:

1. contingent on the existence of a State-facilitated militia; and

2. not an individual right.

 

Here is an excerpt on the proceedings of the debate (as it applies to the 2nd Amendment).

 

Those who opposed the Bill of Rights felt that to define such rights was to suggest the Government was given more power than it was intended to have. Madison's Amendments were intended to enshrine individual rights, and he says so in his speech when he proposed them to Congress (source).

 

It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism, if they were satisfied on this one point. We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes, and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this Constitution. The acquiescence which our fellow citizens show under the Government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation. But perhaps there is a stronger motive than this for our going into a consideration of the subject. It is to provide those securities for liberty which are required by a part of the community; I allude in a particular manner to those two States who have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the Confederacy. It is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt, if we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in those States that are not come in, that we have seen prevailing in those States which have embraced the Constitution.

 

Feel free to make your case, based on the Founders' comments themselves and the original debate, that they did not intend to create a limited form of government. (limited in the sense that the Bill of Rights is a limitation on the Federal)

 

I have and you continue to deny them. You unconditionally refuse to acknowledge the works of the anti-federalists and their effect on the constitution sticking with the standard conservative republican dogma. I'm sorry that you have an extremely limited view on this issue but i can keep offering sound thoughtful evidence and you will continue not to acknowledge or even read it. Having read both the collected works of the Federalists and 50 some works of the anti-federalists I find your narrow mind extremely typical for a conservative.

 

It is not surprising that you want to limit the debate to your cherry picked points.

Edited by Langston Hughes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have and you continue to deny them. You unconditionally refuse to acknowledge the works of the anti-federalists and their effect on the constitution sticking with the standard conservative republican dogma. I'm sorry that you have an extremely limited view on this issue but i can keep offering sound thoughtful evidence and you will continue not to acknowledge or even read it. Having read both the collected works of the Federalists and 50 some works of the anti-federalists I find your narrow mind extremely typical for a conservative.

 

It is not surprising that you want to limit the debate to your cherry picked points.

Please, I'M BEGGING YOU. Where are the Founders' comments you've posted, and which ones have I denied?

 

Here is what you have said.....

 

Therefore a Bill of Rights, which was argued for by those who opposed the Constitution originally and not the Federalists was added, which included the 2nd. Amendment that gave States the right to have armed militia's.

 

Although you have not quoted anyone (of the time), I have tried to respond thoughtfully.

 

There are two operatives at work here in your statement. First, there is the question of whether or not State's have the right to armed militias (which you opine Article 1, Sec 8 denies). Second, does that right (to have armed militias) preclude the right of individuals to keep and bear arms? You've (apparently) asserted that the prefatory clause in the 2nd Amendment is a conditional clause, but have provided only your opinion that it is conditional (and exclusive) rather than providing anything to indicate this was the intent. I've provided citations, and quotations with the counter-view.

 

Can you cite any statement, amendment, or proposal from anyone at that time that makes the individual right to keep and bear arms conditional on there being a State-sponsored militia? And I mean give me a quote, cite an article. Give me ANYTHING (from the Founders' time), and POST IT HERE WITH THE LINK that in no uncertain terms says that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms only in the service of the State or Federal militia?

 

I have read this article you posted: http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/1210.200704.maslowski.creationusarmedforces.html

 

It contains nothing suggesting a view that the citizenry should be disarmed to facilitate the formation of national armed forces; only that a professional army is more effective that citizen-soldiers. Is that your case? Please tell me paragraph and sentence that cites a prevailing view that the individual right (to keep and bear arms) doesn't or shouldn't exist, if I've overlooked it.

 

I've read everything you've posted carefully and with thought; even though you don't give me credit for that. I suppose it's because we don't draw the same conclusions. But, I'll refrain from accusing you of a "narrow mind extremely typical of a.....". Perhaps you can provide the same consideration?

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Biden: It’s Gun Safety, Not Gun Control

 

Safety? Are guns self firing? Exploding? Melting and misfiring?

 

Joe, you are a bold-faced LIAR.

 

Wow. One thing the NRA has always stood far is safe and responsible gun ownership. If Biden was really interested in gun safety, he'd have paid more attention to what NRA had to say instead of that mockery of a meeting he had with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the not too distant future we face an economic disaster far easier to predict than the mortgage meltdown. ($16.4 trillion and counting...) It will probably come with Obama still in power. At that time we may see the end of the Democrat party. This time the Republicans have been very very clear about the hazard, and the Democrats have just whistled past the grave yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game, set, match.

 

Let's not forget that the only way for a State to have an armed militia is for the PEOPLE of that state to have Arms. You can't have an armed militia without armed citizens.

 

Trying to argue otherwise is foolish.

Sure you can. The arms are maintained in an armoury. Reservists and guardsmen don't carry fully automatic M-16s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. One thing the NRA has always stood far is safe and responsible gun ownership. If Biden was really interested in gun safety, he'd have paid more attention to what NRA had to say instead of that mockery of a meeting he had with them.

The NRA used tro be all about safe and responsible gun ownership. Now it is a lobbying group for gun manufacturers and salesmen. How else can you explain its uniform opposition to any restrictions on guns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NRA used tro be all about safe and responsible gun ownership. Now it is a lobbying group for gun manufacturers and salesmen. How else can you explain its uniform opposition to any restrictions on guns?

Incremental-ism.

 

First they came for the
, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the
, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the
, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the
, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the
, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Can you not see the issue is about responsibility? Oh, that's right. Everyone should be absolved of the responsibilities of their actions.

 

Fail High School? Ok. We'll give you income assistance since McDonald's doesn't pay enough to raise your 15 children. "SOMEBODY gotta pay fo ALL these Chil'ren".

Unwanted pregnancy? Sure, and we'll even pay for your birth control pills. Ask Sandra Fluke. We're trying to get your abortion covered, but the heartless Republicans keep holding us back.

Murder? We'll keep those same heartless Republicans from frying your sociopathic ass. We send hundreds to the prison to protest the death penalty.

Kill 10 people? We'll make sure no one has the method or means of defending themselves with more than a slingshot.

Shoot up an Elementary School? Will be sure to notify you that no one on the property has firearms to slow you down before the police respond.

 

You folks give far too much power to the government. Do you truly believe they are simply benevolent servants doing only what is in the best interest of you and your family?

 

 

 

 

 

So did the Jews.....and the German people....if you ask them today.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NRA used tro be all about safe and responsible gun ownership. Now it is a lobbying group for gun manufacturers and salesmen. How else can you explain its uniform opposition to any restrictions on guns?

 

 

The NRA IS about safe firearm instruction and use and does try to protect the 2nd amendment. The NRA has never been about irresponsible firearm use or defended as such.

The NRA has done more than any other organization to promote the safe use and handling of firearms.

 

Quote-

 

The Law Enforcement Division (LED) of the NRA was established in 1960 specifically to provide the law enforcement community with a means to certify law enforcement firearm instructors. Over the last 50 years, we have trained more than 55,000 law enforcement firearm instructors and currently have over 11,000 active certified instructors.

 

 

I am one of those certified instructors and what is going on in politics is simply wrong and misguided IMHO. What is currently being floated as "reasonable measures" is nothing more than penalizing legal gun owners and users for the deeds of a few mentally defective people in the population. The solutions being suggested would have not prevented the tragedy that kicked it off. The Sandy Hook shooting as an example a rifle or "assault weapon" was not ever used yet the misguided effort to ban or restrict a weapon that was not the problem continues. This shows that saving lives is not the goal but banning types of firearms that may look menacing is.

 

 

Make ALL firearm related crimes federal charges with federal minimum's similar to armed robbery which is around 10 years would be a good start. This includes people in illegal possession or sale of any firearms.

 

If this was the case some of the BATF staff would be doing time for the Fast & Furious BS which they orchestrated.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NRA used tro be all about safe and responsible gun ownership. Now it is a lobbying group for gun manufacturers and salesmen. How else can you explain its uniform opposition to any restrictions on guns?

I'm not a member of the NRA, however they seem to be in favor of restrictions on criminals and (diagnosed) crazy people.

 

"Restrictions on guns" is a straw man. Guns are inanimate objects incapable of doing anything by themselves.

 

The NRA's issue is "restrictions on users" of guns, and as far as I can tell, the NRA has only uniformly opposed restrictions on law-abiding users of guns, including their rightful (ie. lawful) purchase of so-called "assault" weapons and "high-capacity" magazines.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NRA used tro be all about safe and responsible gun ownership. Now it is a lobbying group for gun manufacturers and salesmen. How else can you explain its uniform opposition to any restrictions on guns?

 

Because that's what it's membership demands. Trust me on this one, you are COMPLETELY wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant that they don't take them home. I should have made that clear.

 

 

Actually if you were on the rifle team (competed) you were allowed to take the rifle home. My friend had an issued M14 for a while until they were all recalled and put in service across the pond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure you can. The arms are maintained in an armoury. Reservists and guardsmen don't carry fully automatic M-16s

 

There are number of reasons why the National Guard and Reserves are NOT the militia. Key among these is the fact that the National Guard and Reserve can be called up and deployed overseas to foriegn conflicts and that one fact alone makes them a part of the regular standing army and not militia. The militia is every able bodied citizien, regardless of gender. Furthermore the second amendment makes it clear with regards to how the people will keep and bear arms. The words are "shall not be infringed." Locking up firearms in an armory where only certain individuals can gain access and when access can be granted is in the hands of a few would in fact be an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers were very clear on this and they were also right, the primary reason for American citizens to have firearms is to protect themselves from tyranny within their own government.. It's not about hunting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are number of reasons why the National Guard and Reserves are NOT the militia. Key among these is the fact that the National Guard and Reserve can be called up and deployed overseas to foriegn conflicts and that one fact alone makes them a part of the regular standing army and not militia.

 

There is a process for this happen, it doesn't happen automatically, since the funding comes from the state (well through federal $$$ also)....not to mention alot of states also have Militias

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a process for this happen, it doesn't happen automatically, since the funding comes from the state (well through federal $$$ also)....not to mention alot of states also have Militias

 

 

Yes there is a process but it doesn't matter. If the Defense Department decides they want to deploy a National Guard unit to another country that unit is going, process be damned. By default that means that the National Guard is not a militia.

 

Furthemore, Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution lays out the powers granted to the Congress. Subsection 12 states

 

 

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation

of Money to that Use shall be for a

longer Term than two Years;

 

 

After that subsections 15 and 16 state

 

 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to

execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections

and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining,

the Militia, and for governing such

Part of them as may be employed in the Service

of the United States, reserving to the States respectively,

the Appointment of the Officers, and

the Authority of training the Militia according

to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

What we clearly see from this is that the militia and the standing army are regarded as two separate entities with separte roles to play. Additionally the responsiblity for organizing and training the militia falls to the states, which almost all of them have failed to do. The militia serves but one role and that is to protect the homeland. It is not a standing army that is subject to being called up for duty outside the borders of the United States. If you look at the way that the National Guard is organized, all of the units are only what the Defense Department wants with respect to what they do. In other words, DOD looks at your state and decides that what the really need is two artillery battallions and a communications brigade, just as an example. That decision is made based solely on the needs of the federal standing army and it's anticipation of what sort of units it will need for future overseas action. It is not made with the idea that those units exist only to defend the homeland. That again is further proof that the National Guard is not the militia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...