Refute common anti gun talking points

Status
Not open for further replies.
lionking said:
the anti's aren't going to listen and for those that are on the fence and don't know much about guns the best way to reach them is point out maniacs have done as much carnage with other types of guns hardware.
Click to expand...
There, fixed it for ya.;) If they don't have a firearm, they'll resort to other means; fact in point, driving an auto through a crowd.

Regards,
hps
 
AlexanderA said:
OK, the Militia Clause was negated by Justice Scalia as mere "prefatory language," in the Heller case.
Click to expand...
I see your point, but no government-appointed judicial system is going to say, "the Second Amendment is to protect you from us." Well, except for the Founding Fathers, who recognized how much responsibility they were undertaking. Our obligation when citing the 2A, is to explain that it's sole purpose is to ensure that the power rests with the people, not the elected officials. However, in this day and age, the common man does not want to consider any malevolence from the people that keep promising "free" stuff...
 
AlexanderA said:
I would include crew-served weapons as well. Even artillery.
Click to expand...

I know. We love you for it. I get where you are coming from and respect the thorough-going commitment to your logic.

I'd guess there's approximately a zero percent chance of John Q. Apathy ever coming around to that view, though, so I prefer not to premise my arguments on agreement with it.
 
ATLDave said:
I'd guess there's approximately a zero percent chance of John Q. Apathy ever coming around to that view, though, so I prefer not to premise my arguments on agreement with it.
Click to expand...
The only place where my argument would gain traction would be with a Supreme Court made up of true originalists (unlike the a la carte "originalism" of Scalia). But in the meantime, it's interesting as a thought exercise.
 
They'd have to be originalists who also didn't have any compunction about trashing the political standing of the Supreme Court as an institution.

And if you prevailed, that probably would get the constitution amended. Probably less than 5% of the populace thinks everyone ought to be entitled, as a matter of right, to own 155mm cannons firing explosive shells.
 
AlexanderA said:
That's a fair point. I can't think offhand of a firearm that would not have a military or self-defense application. Even Miller's sawed-off shotgun could have been shown to have had a military application (Miller v. U.S., 1939). But theoretically, if a gun could be found that had no military or self-defense application, I don't believe it would be covered by the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Any arm capable of being borne would remain within the scope of the second amendment. The right "shall not (an imperative, not a request) be infringed." Again, I will point out that this word means "to intrude into" or "diminish." I'm not sure what the purpose of delving into "theory" is, if no one could think of a arm that would not have some military or self defense purpose .


AlexanderA said:
The words "arms" and "bear" are terms of art, or at least they were in 1791, when the Amendment was adopted. "Arms" were the ordinary weapons of the soldier, including his musket, bayonet, and ammunition. "Bear" didn't mean to carry them around haphazardly. It meant to carry them under some sort of military drill and discipline. Of course these terms have been broadened with the passing centuries, but you get the idea.

OK, the Militia Clause was negated by Justice Scalia as mere "prefatory language," in the Heller case. I believe that that was a mistake. His interpretation narrowed the scope of the 2nd Amendment, and weakened the right to bear arms. (It's going to be used to uphold AWB's in the future.) The correct view, in my opinion, is to give the Militia Clause due weight, with the understanding that all members of the public are part of the constitutional militia. The upshot of that view is that everybody is entitled to his own machine gun.
Click to expand...

Term of art or not, I cannot subscribe to the theory that "to keep and bear arms" meant to have them under some sort of military drill and or discipline. Soldiers do that --- possess arms in drills and under discipline ---- but the 2A was intended to protect the right of the people to own the weapon ( as in "keep"), to maintain it in his possession, in his home or domicile, and to "bear" (carry upon ones person).
No one has ever denied that soldiers be armed, both tyrannical despots and leaders of free countries have raised armies and armed the soldiers with whatever the common weapon of the era was. The 2A, IMHO, was clearly intended to protect the right of a free citizen, not a soldier, national guardsman, or militiaman, despite their being considered a subset of the militia.

I don't understand where "haphazard" comes in. The amendment does not imply, or suggest approval of any kind of unsafe or clumsy carrying of arms, and I think we'd all agree someone proceeding along a public street twirling a loaded gun on his finger like a tv gunfighter would be viewed as a danger to the public and dealt with accordingly.
We have laws concerning concealed or open carry in various states, and this is one area where the individual state probably does have proper authority to determine the appropriateness of carry method , so long as it does not outright deny the right.
 
hps1 said:
There, fixed it for ya.;) If they don't have a firearm, they'll resort to other means; fact in point, driving an auto through a crowd.

Regards,
hps
Click to expand...

oh I know been through it all debating gun control people seen and responded to every thing they can sling back. But you know what they to that?, "well a car isn't MADE for killing, a gun is". You will never change their mind.
There is also the " why does someone need a "assault rifle unless they are looking to kill as many people as they can?, only military and police need it". Of course there is then the to reply " why does anyone need a car that goes over 70 mph?, only a cop needs that unless you are looking to outrun them".
 
Bill Raby said:
Don't matter. They are black and scary. And the bad guy in the STAR WARS movie had one.
Click to expand...
Odd. I've watched every one and while I have seen Sterling SMG's, MG42's, MG15's and a certtain C96, I have never seen any AR-15 or M16 variant in any of the Star Wars movies.
 
Tommygunn said:
Term of art or not, I cannot subscribe to the theory that "to keep and bear arms" meant to have them under some sort of military drill and or discipline. Soldiers do that --- possess arms in drills and under discipline ---- but the 2A was intended to protect the right of the people to own the weapon ( as in "keep"), to maintain it in his possession, in his home or domicile, and to "bear" (carry upon ones person).
No one has ever denied that soldiers be armed, both tyrannical despots and leaders of free countries have raised armies and armed the soldiers with whatever the common weapon of the era was. The 2A, IMHO, was clearly intended to protect the right of a free citizen, not a soldier, national guardsman, or militiaman, despite their being considered a subset of the militia.
Click to expand...
Under the militia theory prevalent in the early Republic, everybody (with certain exceptions not relevant here) was deemed to be a "soldier." That's why the right of being armed, under the 2nd Amendment, attaches to everybody. It also follows that the arms being protected are those commonly used by soldiers.

It's pretty clear that "keeping" arms means keeping them at home. Not at a gun club or National Guard armory.

"To bear" is more problematic. As I said, in the 18th century that implied some sort of military drill and discipline. I think that carrying outside the home can be regulated on the state level without violating the 2nd Amendment. (If the courts wanted to give a more expansive definition of "to bear" I would certainly have no objection to that. That isn't originalism, though.)

Keep in mind that Congress and the states can be more pro-gun than the 2nd Amendment requires. If a state, for example, wanted to establish permit-free "constitutional carry," there would be no objection to that. But that's a misnomer because that's not required by the constitution.
 
AlexanderA said:
Under the militia theory prevalent in the early Republic, everybody (with certain exceptions not relevant here) was deemed to be a "soldier." That's why the right of being armed, under the 2nd Amendment, attaches to everybody. It also follows that the arms being protected are those commonly used by soldiers.

that's not required by the constitution.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind the events behind the formation of the Constitution. We had two giant financial powers: the mercantile interests of the American port cities and the whole of the British Empire, pitting their interests against each other. The rifleman of the interior were pretty much content to sit this one out. Mad George III had no respect for our rights, but our existence was of no concern to him. Those much closer mercantile interests of the east coast, who did know we existed, were a much greater threat.

For a handful of Colonial ports to fight the might of the British Empire was a foolish and emotional gesture. They were effectively beaten until the heavy handed British Army began to take raids of reprisal in the interior, thus arousing the riflemen. The war grew costly, and Parliament wasn't willing to pay for it. Too much of what profit there was went to Glasgow traders, and Parliament had little use for them either.

It became a war that wasn't profitable for the British, and there was no way to consolidate the interior. They withdrew.

Nothing much would have come of this. Simple men have fought for freedom before only to watch it immediately stolen in the aftermath of their sacrifices. This time it was different. Those backwoods riflemen had spokesman: Jefferson, Madison, Monroe.

Yeah, they meant for a man to go armed whenever he so chose. It was the mark of a free man. They couldn't conceive of any other measure of proof of who and what they were.

Outline our political and legal history in the two hundred and more years since and what you'll see is a government taking back what those riflemen fought for.

Our politicians, the ones who resent kissing babies and talking about individual rights in exchange for personal power, the one thing they'd like to forget is that we're still here: the descendants of those same American riflemen.
 
AlexanderA said:
I fail to see the point of any of this discussion, actually. The country is divided into two opposing camps and guns are only one of many points of contention or points of identification of the two camps. There are people that normally would be favorable to guns, but now feel they must oppose guns because their "tribe" does. The gun issue cannot be seen in isolation.
Click to expand...

I think this discussion has just about as much point as any other on this board. As a former high school and college debater I have a mental flow chart of "If they say this then I say that". By being prepared and calm I even believe I may have changed a few minds along the way. So discussions like this, even though they may be redundant and in our echo chamber, do indeed have some merit.

I do however agree with your observation that there are those that exhibit the herd or tribe mentality as you put it. I have heard people who I thought were otherwise free thinkers say "Well I HAVE to be {pro|anti} on {insert issue here} because I support {insert politician here}.
 
I grew up on a farm in Idaho. I almost don't remember not knowing how to aim and shoot at least a BB gun. I'm perfectly comfortable around firearms, and, in fact, am more afraid of my table saw than my firearms.

People who learned literally all they know about guns from watching TV and going to the movies will not usually have my degree of comfort. It is natural that they would be afraid. The overwhelming theme they have seen is that some evil person with a gun does a bad deed. The only way they see that evil defeated is a soldier or police officer with a gun. They rarely see the bad guy get his just desserts from the armed civilian he just attempted to carjack, or the father who defends his family. It's almost always the cavalry that comes over the hill to effect a rescue, not the citizen handling the situation.

Politicians trade on that fear. Elect me, and I'll protect you.

Guns are normal. Normal people have guns. Normal people recreate by using guns to make holes in paper, and knock over steel plates and bowling pins. It's putting a projectile on a target, just like golf, bowling, and basketball.
 
AlexanderA said:
I fail to see the point of any of this discussion, actually. The country is divided into two opposing camps and guns are only one of many points of contention or points of identification of the two camps. There are people that normally would be favorable to guns, but now feel they must oppose guns because their "tribe" does. The gun issue cannot be seen in isolation.
Click to expand...

Actually on the Dem side there is contention going on within their party. Many Democrats support gun rights, many don't support illegal immigration let alone free healthcare for them yet the party is being run by the more left right now so it is very possible for certain Dem everyday people to vote against gun control. Get out of the urban cities especially NY, NJ, Chicago, California and such and the policies being proposed by the current Dem candidates is not universally supported by all democratic voters.

It is no wonder that some of them because of this on the left have called for changing the amount of senators in congress and ending the electoral college to favor high population urban votes. I don't know how the next election is going to go but when the Dem candidates all raised hands in favor of free healthcare they may have cut their own throat among blue dog Democrats and independent voters thus preventing sweeping gun control on a federal level anytime soon.
 
What would happen if the anti-gun forces offered a compromise. Put the assault firearms under the NFA with a small fee.

What happens if this strict constructionist court decided that the 2A was a collective right not an individual right. That is, each state has the right to regulate firearms based on the history of the amendment.

Also, take hard to look at the attitude about health care and immigration in the entire country. Maybe, it would be wise to focus on gun control only. The Blue Dogs are coming back. It's a screw up to make that huge over-generalization about Democrats.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Actually on the Dem side there is contention going on within their party. Many Democrats support gun rights, many don't support illegal immigration let alone free healthcare for them yet the party is being run by the more left right now so it is very possible for certain Dem everyday people to vote against gun control. Get out of the urban cities especially NY, NJ, Chicago, California and such and the policies being proposed by the current Dem candidates is not universally supported by all democratic voters.

It is no wonder that some of them because of this on the left have called for changing the amount of senators in congress and ending the electoral college to favor high population urban votes. I don't know how the next election is going to go but when the Dem candidates all raised hands in favor of free healthcare they may have cut their own throat among blue dog Democrats and independent voters thus preventing sweeping gun control on a federal level anytime soon.
Click to expand...

On second night they were all in favor of healthcare for illegal aliens. One even stated to answer question en espanol. I'm not going to support any current Democratic candidate for President.
 
Mowgli Terry said:
What do immigrants and healthcare have to do with firearm owner ship. It's a major strategic screw up to get issues mixed up. Look at what's going on out there in the country,
Click to expand...

Actually, quite a bit. If you import millions of voters with no history of the RKBA, and politicize the medical field against gun owners and "gun violence," you will see quickly see how the other side WILL use those as a club to beat you with. None of this exists in a vacuum, and never has.
 
badkarmamib said:
How is that a compromise? We would be giving up something we previously had, even if it is a "small" fee. What is the other side giving up, that they previously had?
Click to expand...

Right, I saying what if. Not proposing anything. However, I not sure what they would be giving up.

Addendum: How about the part about the court deciding 2A was state right not an individual right.
 
Last edited:
Mowgli Terry said:
What would happen if the anti-gun forces offered a compromise. Put the assault firearms under the NFA with a small fee.

What happens if this strict constructionist court decided that the 2A was a collective right not an individual right. That is, each state has the right to regulate firearms based on the history of the amendment.

Also, take hard to look at the attitude about health care and immigration in the entire country. Maybe, it would be wise to focus on gun control only. The Blue Dogs are coming back. It's a screw up to make that huge over-generalization about Democrats.
Click to expand...

How much of a 'small fee' would it cost for me to exercise my right to bear arms ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
We need to call things what they are
Replies
5
Views
521
jamesbeat
J
T
  • Locked
2nd Amendment gives militia right to bear arms, not individuals
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
Sinixstar
S
Brutuskend
  • Locked
So I got into a talk about the 2nd with some family members.
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
GEM
G
A
  • Locked
Supreme Court's next big gun control case? Kolbe v. Hogan
Replies
19
Views
2K
barnbwt
barnbwt
J
  • Locked
some good news???
Replies
1
Views
447
-v-
V
Back
Top