Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The right of young loners to bear arms

brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 6:48:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What does the 'right to bear arms' really mean in the present day United States? To find out, let's consider, which of the below scenarios is more likely these days.

1. The American people have to raise a militia to overthrow an oppressive dictatorship?

2. The American people are forced to resist colonization by a foreign power because the United States military has been overpowered by a hostile aggressor?

3. Some disillusioned young loner can legally amass an enough high-powered weaponry, ammunition, explosives and body armour to start a small war and use this arsenal to massacre innocent people?

The fact that, in a very short period of time, the 24 year-old social misfit and Batman geek, James Holmes, was able to purchase assault weapons, ammunition, bomb-making materials and military paraphernalia on a wholesale basis without attracting the attention of the authorities, indicates that such behaviour is not unusual in the US.

Tragically, instead of using his military hardware to defend his apartment in Aurora, Colorado from invading British troops intent on re-colonising America, or even to drive off fascist boot boys going door to door recruiting volunteers to assist in a coup d'etat, he decided, for some reason unbeknown to anyone but himself, to go to to his local movie theater packed with innocent men, women and children, lob in a couple of smoke grenades and open fire.

The result of his decision was, as discovered yesterday, was total carnage.

However, the powerful gun lobby in the United States, which is largely supported by neo-Nazi groups, conservative Christian churches, the right-wing media and the Republican Party, tell Americans that enabling young loners to go out and indiscriminately kill and wound innocent people by giving them easy access to lethal firearms is a price worth paying to comply with The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Quite aside from all the other numerous unlawful killings involving firearms that take place every year in the United States, let's just remember the incidents that have involved deranged young men who have been allowed to take out their various grievances on society using firearms over recent years:

-- OAKLAND, California, April 2, 2012 - A gunman opened fire at a private Christian college, killing at least seven people and wounding three others

-- CHARDON, Ohio, February 27, 2012 - A student opened fire in a cafeteria at Chardon High School, killing three students and injuring two others before he was arrested.

-- TUSCON, Arizona, January 8, 2011, a young gunman struck and killed six people and wounded 13 others including a senior politician, who was shot through the head, at a political outreach meeting.

-- DEKALB, Illinois, February 14, 2008 - A former graduate student killed five students at Northern Illinois University before killing himself.

-- BLACKSBURG, Virginia, April 16, 2007 - A student killed 32 students and faculty at Virginia Polytechnic and State University in the worst single act of gun violence in U.S. history.

-- NICKEL MINES, Pennsylvania, October 2, 2006 - An armed dairy truck driver selected the female students at a one-room Amish schoolhouse and shot them execution-style, killing five. The man then shot himself.

-- RED LAKE INDIAN RESERVATION, Minnesota, March 21, 2005 - A 16-year-old high school student killed seven people and wounded several others in a shooting rampage after first killing two others off campus. He then killed himself.

-- TUCSON, Arizona, October 29, 2002 - A failing student shot and killed three professors and then himself in a rampage at the University of Arizona School of Nursing.

-- LITTLETON, Co., April 20, 1999 - Two students killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded more than 20 others before killing themselves at Columbine High School.

I wonder if the pro-gun views of right-wing extremists and religious fundamentalists are really representative of the American people as a whole and that there is no need to re-examine the need to limit the supply of firearms to the general public. I'd be very surprised, and deeply saddened, if they did.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 8:55:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Neither the restriction of firearms or more liberal gun laws will prevent spree killings. Spree killers are determined to do one thing, and that is to kill as many people as possible; they will find a way to get the weapons, and they will always attack people where they are most vulnerable.

Case and point: http://www.breakingnews.ie...

The United Kingdom doesn't even let police carry firearms, yet it seems they too have spree killers.

Furthermore, I'd rather have an armed citizenry than an unarmed one. It deters foreign invasion, and allows people to protect themselves from the government and criminals. There are many incidents where a robbery, murder, and sometimes a spree killing are stopped by an armed law-abiding citizen.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 8:59:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, I find your ad hominem attack on the NRA to be cute. "Neo-Nazis support it, so it is bad." Neo-Nazis also support breathing, so I suppose we should all stop breathing?
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 10:08:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 8:55:20 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
Neither the restriction of firearms or more liberal gun laws will prevent spree killings. Spree killers are determined to do one thing, and that is to kill as many people as possible; they will find a way to get the weapons, and they will always attack people where they are most vulnerable.

Case and point: http://www.breakingnews.ie...

The United Kingdom doesn't even let police carry firearms, yet it seems they too have spree killers.

Furthermore, I'd rather have an armed citizenry than an unarmed one. It deters foreign invasion, and allows people to protect themselves from the government and criminals. There are many incidents where a robbery, murder, and sometimes a spree killing are stopped by an armed law-abiding citizen.

You know I always thought that too, but when I was in London (there was nothing special going on, it was in June of last year) there were what I can only guess were 'special' police officers patrolling the streets with MP-5s. Not many- I only saw 3 or 4, but they were there. They were dressed identically to the non-armed officers.

Anyway, notice in the story that you provided that A. it was a shotgun rampage and B. It happened in the Lake district, a very rural area. Those 2 things punch a huge hole in your point right away because as it happens, a good amount of the people in rural UK have shotguns. To the best of my knowledge it's part of the culture, since a lot of people there are farmers who feel they need protection. The UK may have stricter gun laws, but that doesn't mean there aren't any guns.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 10:41:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 10:08:36 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:55:20 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
Neither the restriction of firearms or more liberal gun laws will prevent spree killings. Spree killers are determined to do one thing, and that is to kill as many people as possible; they will find a way to get the weapons, and they will always attack people where they are most vulnerable.

Case and point: http://www.breakingnews.ie...

The United Kingdom doesn't even let police carry firearms, yet it seems they too have spree killers.

Furthermore, I'd rather have an armed citizenry than an unarmed one. It deters foreign invasion, and allows people to protect themselves from the government and criminals. There are many incidents where a robbery, murder, and sometimes a spree killing are stopped by an armed law-abiding citizen.

You know I always thought that too, but when I was in London (there was nothing special going on, it was in June of last year) there were what I can only guess were 'special' police officers patrolling the streets with MP-5s. Not many- I only saw 3 or 4, but they were there. They were dressed identically to the non-armed officers.

In London there are exceptions around Parliament, that is what you mean I think. But they haven't used MP5s for a while, they use G36e's now. And they're still there if Parliament isn't in session.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 10:55:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In London there are exceptions around Parliament, that is what you mean I think. But they haven't used MP5s for a while, they use G36e's now. And they're still there if Parliament isn't in session.

Isn't that funny? The people don't have the right to protect themselves, but Parliament sure does!
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 11:22:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 10:55:26 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
In London there are exceptions around Parliament, that is what you mean I think. But they haven't used MP5s for a while, they use G36e's now. And they're still there if Parliament isn't in session.

Isn't that funny? The people don't have the right to protect themselves, but Parliament sure does!

Protect the people from who?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 11:46:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Dont be a fool. Killing people is against the law, and yet the young man still did so. Do you (or anyone) have any rational reasons to belief that weapons bans will keep criminals from accessing them? Ask Mexico how that one goes...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 11:50:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 11:22:04 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/21/2012 10:55:26 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
In London there are exceptions around Parliament, that is what you mean I think. But they haven't used MP5s for a while, they use G36e's now. And they're still there if Parliament isn't in session.

Isn't that funny? The people don't have the right to protect themselves, but Parliament sure does!

Protect the people from who?

Filth that thinks they're entitled to your property, oppressive governments, foreign invaders, ect.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 11:51:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 8:55:20 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
Neither the restriction of firearms or more liberal gun laws will prevent spree killings. Spree killers are determined to do one thing, and that is to kill as many people as possible; they will find a way to get the weapons, and they will always attack people where they are most vulnerable.

Case and point: http://www.breakingnews.ie...

The United Kingdom doesn't even let police carry firearms, yet it seems they too have spree killers.

Furthermore, I'd rather have an armed citizenry than an unarmed one. It deters foreign invasion, and allows people to protect themselves from the government and criminals. There are many incidents where a robbery, murder, and sometimes a spree killing are stopped by an armed law-abiding citizen.

Exactly. And still nobody is worried about how he got all of the other equipment, such as tear gas, explosives etc. I find that strange. But someone that determined and intelligent won't be stopped by any regulation. There's always a black market somewhere.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 11:53:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 11:50:16 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 11:22:04 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/21/2012 10:55:26 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
In London there are exceptions around Parliament, that is what you mean I think. But they haven't used MP5s for a while, they use G36e's now. And they're still there if Parliament isn't in session.

Isn't that funny? The people don't have the right to protect themselves, but Parliament sure does!

Protect the people from who?

Filth that thinks they're entitled to your property, oppressive governments, foreign invaders, ect.

Are those big problems in today's United Kingdom?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 11:54:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 11:46:52 AM, thett3 wrote:
Dont be a fool. Killing people is against the law, and yet the young man still did so. Do you (or anyone) have any rational reasons to belief that weapons bans will keep criminals from accessing them? Ask Mexico how that one goes...

What people don't realize is that arguments like this are self-defeating. Why make anything illegal by that logic?...criminals will do what criminals do. Right? No.

A vast quantity of massacres are done by people who obtained their weapons by easy legal means, in a conspicuous and suspicious manner, without ever being questioned. We need firstly, a better cap on the rounds a gun is allowed to hold, and then more careful attention to what people are buying and in what span of time. This would definitely, if anything, reduce the amount of people being killed.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 11:54:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 11:53:39 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/21/2012 11:50:16 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 11:22:04 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/21/2012 10:55:26 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
In London there are exceptions around Parliament, that is what you mean I think. But they haven't used MP5s for a while, they use G36e's now. And they're still there if Parliament isn't in session.

Isn't that funny? The people don't have the right to protect themselves, but Parliament sure does!

Protect the people from who?

Filth that thinks they're entitled to your property, oppressive governments, foreign invaders, ect.

Are those big problems in today's United Kingdom?

The bolded part is in every society to my knowledge. The other two: no, but consider it a form of insurance.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 11:58:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 11:54:20 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/21/2012 11:46:52 AM, thett3 wrote:
Dont be a fool. Killing people is against the law, and yet the young man still did so. Do you (or anyone) have any rational reasons to belief that weapons bans will keep criminals from accessing them? Ask Mexico how that one goes...

What people don't realize is that arguments like this are self-defeating. Why make anything illegal by that logic?

Now you're getting it.

...criminals will do what criminals do. Right? No.

Thats why drug and alcohol prohibition kicked so much asss right?

A vast quantity of massacres are done by people who obtained their weapons by easy legal means, in a conspicuous and suspicious manner, without ever being questioned.

1. Accepting that as true is irrelevant. Would you like the stats? Less than .1% of firearms are used in aggressive acts, and "assault weapons" usage is extreme rare.

2. I dont buy it without examples. I do know that the columbine shooters broke no less than 22 gun laws

We need firstly, a better cap on the rounds a gun is allowed to hold, and then more careful attention to what people are buying and in what span of time. This would definitely, if anything, reduce the amount of people being killed.

Would you like to do a gun rights debate?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 11:58:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 11:54:52 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 11:53:39 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/21/2012 11:50:16 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 11:22:04 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/21/2012 10:55:26 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
In London there are exceptions around Parliament, that is what you mean I think. But they haven't used MP5s for a while, they use G36e's now. And they're still there if Parliament isn't in session.

Isn't that funny? The people don't have the right to protect themselves, but Parliament sure does!

Protect the people from who?

Filth that thinks they're entitled to your property, oppressive governments, foreign invaders, ect.

Are those big problems in today's United Kingdom?


The bolded part is in every society to my knowledge. The other two: no, but consider it a form of insurance.

True, but I'm not sure having more guns makes that filth easier to handle.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 11:59:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 11:58:27 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/21/2012 11:54:52 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 11:53:39 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/21/2012 11:50:16 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 11:22:04 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/21/2012 10:55:26 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
In London there are exceptions around Parliament, that is what you mean I think. But they haven't used MP5s for a while, they use G36e's now. And they're still there if Parliament isn't in session.

Isn't that funny? The people don't have the right to protect themselves, but Parliament sure does!

Protect the people from who?

Filth that thinks they're entitled to your property, oppressive governments, foreign invaders, ect.

Are those big problems in today's United Kingdom?


The bolded part is in every society to my knowledge. The other two: no, but consider it a form of insurance.

True, but I'm not sure having more guns makes that filth easier to handle.

Why not? A few shots in the chest will take out most robbers forever (assuming you even have to fire...flashing a gun at them will likely make them run off)
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 12:16:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Guns are used in defense. 2.5 million times per year -- 5 times more often then they are used in crime -- and is a proven Deterent.

Those instances of shooting is based on emotion, NOT facts. Those argunments saying "gunman kills. 15 people... BAN GUNS!!" make me laugh as guns save more lives then they take away.

[Kleck & Gertz 1995] http://concealedguns.procon.org...

Other studies say gubs are used in defense 4.5 million times a year.
[DOJ 1997] http://www.tscm.com...

Your argunment is an emotional one, not a factual one
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 12:16:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 11:51:48 AM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:55:20 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
Neither the restriction of firearms or more liberal gun laws will prevent spree killings. Spree killers are determined to do one thing, and that is to kill as many people as possible; they will find a way to get the weapons, and they will always attack people where they are most vulnerable.

Case and point: http://www.breakingnews.ie...

The United Kingdom doesn't even let police carry firearms, yet it seems they too have spree killers.

Furthermore, I'd rather have an armed citizenry than an unarmed one. It deters foreign invasion, and allows people to protect themselves from the government and criminals. There are many incidents where a robbery, murder, and sometimes a spree killing are stopped by an armed law-abiding citizen.

Exactly. And still nobody is worried about how he got all of the other equipment, such as tear gas, explosives etc. I find that strange. But someone that determined and intelligent won't be stopped by any regulation. There's always a black market somewhere.
You do realize the shooter got all the weapons 100% legally…
Sapere Aude!
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 12:20:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also gun bans show increases in crime, and it has been observed gun crime raises with gun bans as only law abiding citizens turn in their weapons. In other words it disarms the wrong people and ruins a chance at self defense.
http://www.nsanz.org.nz...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 12:20:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 12:16:28 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Guns are used in defense. 2.5 million times per year -- 5 times more often then they are used in crime -- and is a proven Deterent.

You mean like in the Trayvon Martin case? :p

Those instances of shooting is based on emotion, NOT facts. Those argunments saying "gunman kills. 15 people... BAN GUNS!!" make me laugh as guns save more lives then they take away.

[Kleck & Gertz 1995] http://concealedguns.procon.org...

Other studies say gubs are used in defense 4.5 million times a year.
[DOJ 1997] http://www.tscm.com...

Your argunment is an emotional one, not a factual one
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 12:21:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 11:54:20 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/21/2012 11:46:52 AM, thett3 wrote:
Dont be a fool. Killing people is against the law, and yet the young man still did so. Do you (or anyone) have any rational reasons to belief that weapons bans will keep criminals from accessing them? Ask Mexico how that one goes...

What people don't realize is that arguments like this are self-defeating. Why make anything illegal by that logic?...criminals will do what criminals do. Right? No.

A vast quantity of massacres are done by people who obtained their weapons by easy legal means, in a conspicuous and suspicious manner, without ever being questioned. We need firstly, a better cap on the rounds a gun is allowed to hold, and then more careful attention to what people are buying and in what span of time. This would definitely, if anything, reduce the amount of people being killed.

It's possible to deter criminals, gun bans ruin the deterrent effect. So the argunments a false analogy.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 12:21:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 12:20:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/21/2012 12:16:28 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Guns are used in defense. 2.5 million times per year -- 5 times more often then they are used in crime -- and is a proven Deterent.

You mean like in the Trayvon Martin case? :p

That would not be considered in the surveys.


Those instances of shooting is based on emotion, NOT facts. Those argunments saying "gunman kills. 15 people... BAN GUNS!!" make me laugh as guns save more lives then they take away.

[Kleck & Gertz 1995] http://concealedguns.procon.org...

Other studies say gubs are used in defense 4.5 million times a year.
[DOJ 1997] http://www.tscm.com...

Your argunment is an emotional one, not a factual one
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 12:22:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'll debate anyone on gun rights here.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 12:28:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Read pp. 670 - 73

[Kates & Mauser 2007] http://www.law.harvard.edu...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 1:26:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"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."

Let's look at this amendment section by section.

"A well regulated Militia (comma) being necessary to the security of a free State (comma) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (comma) shall not be infringed."

So let's divide it by the commas.

"A well regulated Militia"

At the time, the word "regulated" was used when referring to troops, to mean "Properly disciplined." A well regulated militia would thus be a properly disciplined militia. This usuage is not obsolete, but regulated can still mean "To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation."
(Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989)

The Federalist papers also use this definition, indicating that this was the definition in the second amendment.

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss." ~ The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Notice also that it mentions yeomen farmers as the militia. A yeomen is a farmer who volunteers to fight in a military unit called a Yeomanry. A Yeomanry is the basis of the militia, and was meant to defend the local area, and put down riots or rebellions. Yeomen were not obligated to serve oversees like regulars, unless the individual yeomen gave their consent to be shipped overseas.

Militia Acts of 1792 required that every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45, be entered into a local militia company overseen by the state (not the federal government).
Regular military officers would be in charge of training, and commanding the militia; the officers of militia were seen as lower in rank than equivalent officers of the regular army.

According to Article 1 section 8, the purpose of the militia was to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". Just like the Yeomen. They were by no means soldiers, and they were not compelled to service if they had moral objections.

In regards t insurrections; according to article 3 section 3 "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them". "them" meaning the states, as it is plural. The "United States" is reference to the Federation of States, and "several states" is reference to the member states collectively. In other words, waging war against one state is the same as waging war against the entire federation.

According to article 4 section 2,Treason is a State crime, and as such is the member state's responsibility to prosecute. Fugitives who are charged with treason are to be delivered back to the state where they were charged, if found in another state.
Congress determines the punishment for treason, but the states handle the prosecution.

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

As I already mentioned, the "United States" means a the Federation of States, and the "several states" means the member states collectively. A "Free State" is an individual member state.

When using the phrase "United States" it refers to all the member states linked as one. When using the phrase "several states" it refers to all the member states collectively, and independently. When using the phrase "Free State" it refers to any one member state. "Free Sate" is singular, but "several states" and "united states" are both plural.

We can thus conclude that the first 2 sections reads "A properly disciplined civilian military force, being necessary to the security of the individual member states"

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

"people" means citizens, therefore it is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.

Arms refers to any weapon of war; including bombs, and artillery.

many claim that bear means to have in one's possession, but that is the same as keep. It makes no sense to say citizens have the right to keep and keep arms.
Bear means to bring forward.
One of the grievances against King George, listed in the declaration of independence was that "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country"
Bear Arms was used in the sense of military combat, using the tools of war.

In section 1, article 3 of the NH constitution it states, "No person, who is conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms, shall be compelled thereto."

Bearing arms, can be reasonably assumed to mean using military weapons, against someone or some entity.

We can thus conclude that the first 3 sections reads "A properly disciplined civilian military force, being necessary to the security of the individual member states, the right of US citizens to keep and use weapons of war"

"shall not be infringed."

infringed means to be limited or undermined.

We can thus conclude that the 2nd amendment means "A properly disciplined civilian military force, being necessary to the security of the individual member states, the right of US citizens to keep and use weapons of war, shall not be limited r undermined"

In other words; yes we have a right to keep and use any weapon we want. The reason for this right is the defense of ourselves, our families, our property and our state. We may levy war against the Federal Government, but only in order to protect our home state. If the federal government invades New Hampshire, I have a right to bear arms against the invading force. I do not have a right to bear arms against my own state, unless my state grants me the right to revolution (some states do, including NH)
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 1:30:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Criminals and crazies will always find a way to obtain weapons. Besides, like alcohol, guns is an American tradition and way of life.

Banning guns would be akin to Prohibition. It wouldn't work.

Even crazies are entitled to their Constitutional rights. What they do with their property is on them. Even if it is horrendous, they'll pay for their actions.

Now, onto a different topic. Does this man deserve the death penalty? Because Colorado doesn't have it (I don't think). So he gets to spend the rest of his life in jail being clothed and fed by the tax payers he just shot at. Thoughts?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 1:35:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 6:48:04 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
What does the 'right to bear arms' really mean in the present day United States? To find out, let's consider, which of the below scenarios is more likely these days.

1. The American people have to raise a militia to overthrow an oppressive dictatorship?
You never need the weapons of a deterrent until you get rid of them. ^_^


2. The American people are forced to resist colonization by a foreign power because the United States military has been overpowered by a hostile aggressor?
Well, we can't afford to keep the military this way you know. Likely present day? No. 20 years? Never know.


3. Some disillusioned young loner can legally amass an enough high-powered weaponry, ammunition, explosives and body armour to start a small war
Um, no. Guns don't start wars, soldiers start wars. One dude is not a sufficient number of soldiers. Even John Brown needed people with him. (Of course, the guns are important, there's a reason he attacked a federal armory-- but he lost, thereby not getting the guns, and still the Civil War started!)

Tragically, instead of using his military hardware to defend his apartment in Aurora, Colorado from invading British troops intent on re-colonising America, or even to drive off fascist boot boys going door to door recruiting volunteers to assist in a coup d'etat, he decided, for some reason unbeknown to anyone but himself, to go to to his local movie theater packed with innocent men, women and children, lob in a couple of smoke grenades and open fire.
In a country where bleach and ammonia are sold you can gas a movie theater too.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 1:37:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We need firstly, a better cap on the rounds a gun is allowed to hold,
Now criminals and tyrants should get a shot advantage?

The presently existing magazine cap is stupid enough already.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 1:40:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 12:16:32 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 11:51:48 AM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:55:20 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
Neither the restriction of firearms or more liberal gun laws will prevent spree killings. Spree killers are determined to do one thing, and that is to kill as many people as possible; they will find a way to get the weapons, and they will always attack people where they are most vulnerable.

Case and point: http://www.breakingnews.ie...

The United Kingdom doesn't even let police carry firearms, yet it seems they too have spree killers.

Furthermore, I'd rather have an armed citizenry than an unarmed one. It deters foreign invasion, and allows people to protect themselves from the government and criminals. There are many incidents where a robbery, murder, and sometimes a spree killing are stopped by an armed law-abiding citizen.

Exactly. And still nobody is worried about how he got all of the other equipment, such as tear gas, explosives etc. I find that strange. But someone that determined and intelligent won't be stopped by any regulation. There's always a black market somewhere.
You do realize the shooter got all the weapons 100% legally…
And many don't. Of course if you can get it legally you will. If you have to pay a little more to get it illegally you'll do that instead, mebbe take out a loan or something.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.