Number of anti's on THR?

[hexidismal]

RPCVYemen: There may or may not be stats to support that fact. I don't know. One major problem with that statistic though, is that much of the time people do not report having defended themselves with a gun, due to many legal factors against them. I'm sure most people would report it if they had fired a gun, but how do you statistically account for all the lives that are saved from a firearm merely being present ? Or even one better .. how you you statistically account for all the potential crimes that are never initiated due to the deterrent factor of privately owned guns ?

 

[omahanew]

Quote quote:

(so long as they are for the purpose I believe in such as)

Just like you.

(and therefore subject to confiscation at any time)

Do you REALLY think that confiscation is a possibility?

I think that any male using a firearm in the commission of a crime should be castrated (tortured and neutered for no rational reason). Some people would say that there's no connection between the crime and that particular punishment but I bet you it'd be an effective deterrent (because I know this personally)

Nice attempt at an insult. You demean yourself.

I still haven't figured out what to do about women that use a firearm in the commission of a crime (because I do not understand women

See above.

I think that any jurisdiction that wants to restrict or ban the possession of any type, or all types, of firearms ought to be able to do so. If you don't like the restrictions, move. (what I meant in the first paragraph about people being allowed to own guns I did not really mean at all)

I guess you didn't understand my point about moving.

I think that any firearms dealer that has a pattern of illegal arms sales (That is to say the dealer has not committted any crime

I guess you don't understand the concept of "illegal arms sales".

(because after all you can never have a large enough pile of testicles in city hall)

Probably equal to half the number of dicks in city hall.

I believe that there are a lot of people out there that ignore the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment. (I don't really know what it means myself but I think it has something to do with the National guard)

You seem to be confirming the "ignore" part or, perhaps, you just don't want to accept another opinion.

I think that Wayne LaPierre is an annoying a**hole. (I need to buy a thesaurus but am running low on funds)

That makes no sense. You may think it does, but you're wrong.

I think that someone should invent a trigger lock that would stop anyone from opening it if they if they were drunk (because after all you don't need to defend yourself when you are drunk and drinking is bad).

See below.

Said lock could be opened in a true emergency but then you have to destroy the gun (And castrate the owner... sometimes I even impress myself).

I'm sure that you "impress" yourself many times a day.

Your reward for using a lock like this would be something like REALLY low insurance rates or something like that (because home owners insurance is so gosh darn high right now).

Who said homeowners? Not I. There needs to be an incentive that would convince someone to use such a lock on their gun. DO you have a better idea for such an incentive?

I believe that guns don't kill people, bullets kill people, unless you club someone to death with a rifle butt (bullets, unlike guns are antimate.

Actually, bullets are inanimate but, when thrown at great speed into a person they seem to do damage.
Curious, ain't it?

 

[omahanew]

Except for that darn pseky shall not be infringed part huh?

Or even that pesky "well regulated militia" part, which is just as important. You can't have one without the other.

 

[omahanew]

One of the core issues with the pro 2nd crowd (which I hope you'll join someday, but it doesn't look likely) is that we have a law on the books which says that we have a right to own guns.

This right is in the same section of the same document which protects speech, religion, protects against illegal searches, gives women the right to vote, etc, etc....

But none of the other rights have such a qualifier so it must have been thought of as different.

 

[RPCVYemen]

... but how do you statistically account for all the lives that are saved from a firearm merely being present ...

That's exactly why I'd like to know the citation. I can't quite figure how the stat would be measured - or how it could be measured. But if it has actually been measured, I'd like to know and understand the method of measurement before I cite it as a fact.

Mike

 

[wuluf]

Way back in post #14 Geekwitha.45 said

The anti's case rests entirely on manufactured ambiguity. Without it, they have nothing to stand on.

Geek, care to expand on that? What ambiguity, specifically?__________________

 

[SuperNaut]

But none of the other rights have such a qualifier so it must have been thought of as different.

If one were to read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers as well as the abundantly available discourses of the Founding Fathers; there would be no question as to what the 2A protects against and what "a well regulated militia" actually means. Only a tourtured and possibly disingenuous reading of the 2A would mistake it for a collective right rather than individual.

Instead of debating with THR members about the meaning of "milita," I suggest doing some research and reporting what you discover and we'll talk about that. It would be far more productive than pretending that nobody knows what the Founding Fathers meant.

It isn't a mystery, just inconvenient.

 

[Drifter27]

I don't post much, mostly because I don't have constant web access so i don't know what you all think, but here goes. Being young and probably still ignorant, not knowing when to shut up and all ive noticed once you start talking about police response time and all most against "people killers" get mad and change the subject. My sister-in-law wont let a 20-gauge or .22 in her house because it is dangerous and scary (she likes the camo one-zie i got for my neice from cabelas, go figure). My girlfriend has the "it looks the same as that one, why do you need it?" attitude, but doesn't mind a shotgun next to the bed every night. My little sister used to think that everythink that went bang was bad news and crazy and all that stuff. I don't know what happened but now she likes my 10/22 so much she wants her own. I know what Ive seen and that is some people simply don't like guns, some don't like them but put up with them, and some people just come around. Anti's may wander around on here, but the more facts and positive ownership information we put on here can't hurt anything.

 

[Titan6]

Troll still hungry...


Omahanew- Actually I believe that people should own firearms for no reason other than they want to and it is their right. I don't place any restriction on what they want to use it for or even really care why they want to own one, just as if they had bought a car or a dozen eggs. It really isn't any of my business. So no I am not just like you.


So far as confiscation it is already happening. Maybe if you looked around the forum and read some of the articles from California, New Orleans and Chicago you would see that. Shocking I know, but still true.

So far as moving away from gun banning where are you going to go when guns are banned everywhere? And why should people have to move to have a right they were born with?

I don't understand your concept of illegal arms sales. If someone breaks the law they go to prison. How can someone show a ''pattern'' and not get arrested? No need to violate their civil rights and hack their jewels off. Not sure what your fascination is with that but it is troubling. I suggest you seek professional help and work out your issues.

People that resort to profanity and vulgarity generally have a limited vocabulary. While this is likely a failing of whatever public school you went to it does not have to stay this way! I suggest reading and THR is a good place to start.

What insurance are you talking about then? Some mythical insurance that all gun owners have to buy?

Bullets inflict deadly injuries on people that often cause death through trauma, shock and bleeding. A box of shells sitting in a desk won't kill someone in a thousand years. A person must take the rounds put them in a device that will propel them at sufficient velocity, aim them at someone and activate the device. So did the bullet kill the person? The bleeding? or was it another person that did it?
If you grind those gears real careful like you might come to the same conclusion as the law enforcement community; the person killed the other person. Unless you want to put the bullets on trial (good luck with that)...

 

[pdowg881]

^well said

 

[omahanew]

"If one were to read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers"

Why is it that when someone brings up the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd someone else starts waffling on about the Federalist papers? If you read the actual amendment it seems clear that the right to bear arms is contingent on there being a well regulated militia which would mean some sort of armed force organized and regulated by the government (representatives of the people after all). Do you distrust your fellow voters that much?

 

[omahanew]

"So far as moving away from gun banning where are you going to go when guns are banned everywhere? And why should people have to move to have a right they were born with?"

<Sigh...>

Born with? Try again. Any "rights" in our Constitution are things that were agreed upon by the folks that wrote it. Those "rights' can be modified, or eliminated, by Constitutional amendment. I'ts why amending the Constitution is so difficult. It was okay to own slaves, then it wasn't. It was okay to stop women from voting, then it wasn't. It was okay to drink a shot of Jack Daniels, then it wasn't, then it was again. That's just the way things are in this country.

Seriously though. Do you really think that the citizens of this country are going to enact a nationwide ban on firearms?

 

[JWarren]

Born with? Try again.

Yes. Born with.


To quote Dryden "Self-Defense is nature's eldest law."


Governmental institutions and society seem to forget that the human condition has long pre-dated any form of organization we have devised.

Every creature has the right to defend itself and has asserted that right long before anyone sat down and voted to determine IF it is a right.

Congress could make a law that people should no longer breath oxygen, and it won't make the human condition any different.

-- John

 

[SuperNaut]

Why is it that when someone brings up the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd someone else starts waffling on about the Federalist papers? If you read the actual amendment it seems clear that the right to bear arms is contingent on there being a well regulated militia which would mean some sort of armed force organized and regulated by the government (representatives of the people after all). Do you distrust your fellow voters that much?

It is because it helps provide context. I notice that you didn't go read them, instead you want to pretend that the meaning is mysterious and ill defined and would prefer to speculate. Why is that I wonder? You could clear up your confusion quite quickly, yet prefer not. Why is that? While you are reading the documents I referenced earlier, look up the definition of "waffling."

 

[SaMx]

The "well regulated militia" part isn't so much a qualifier as it is an explanation. Basically I read the amendment as, "seeing as some sort of military is necessary to secure the existence of the state, the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms to counter the potential for tyranny that military presents."
stating that the militia has the right to bear arms simply isn't logical. And stating that the states have the right to create militias, well, you have to pretty much torture the sentence to interpret it that way.

 

[JWarren]

Originally Posted by omahanew
Why is it that when someone brings up the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd someone else starts waffling on about the Federalist papers? If you read the actual amendment it seems clear that the right to bear arms is contingent on there being a well regulated militia which would mean some sort of armed force organized and regulated by the government (representatives of the people after all). Do you distrust your fellow voters that much?

If you read the other writings of the crafters of the constitution, their intent would not be in question.

For example:


"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])




"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)




"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))


"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)



"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)


"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)



"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))





I have NO QUESTION as to the intent of our country's founders and the framers of our Constitution.

Any other representation of their intent is intellectually dishonest, morally represhensible, and socially irresponsible.


-- John

 

[Art Eatman]

omahanew, a few points: First, have you ever read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights? It explains the purpose of the first ten amendments: To prevent an abuse of power by the State. The BOR is a package of restraints on the central government.

Being such a restraint on government, how, then, can it also be a restraint on the citizenry? That's contradictory, since the BOR enumerates rights; it does not grant them.

I note that those who see the Second Amendment as a collective right are careful to not mention the views of the very people who wrote the BOR: Jefferson and Adams, et al, were unanimous in their other writings that individuals had the right to be armed. Since those people believed that you and I have the right to be armed as individuals, why would they have written otherwise in the Second Amendment?

Insofar as guns in general, and from the standpoint of personal needs outside the context of the Second Amendment, I offer this by Marko Kloos, posted at his blog (the munchkin wrangler).

"Why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Posted by Marko"

Art

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Hello??

Born with? Try again. Any "rights" in our Constitution are things that were agreed upon by the folks that wrote it. Those "rights" can be modified, or eliminated, by Constitutional amendment. I'ts why amending the Constitution is so difficult. It was okay to own slaves, then it wasn't. It was okay to stop women from voting, then it wasn't. It was okay to drink a shot of Jack Daniels, then it wasn't, then it was again. That's just the way things are in this country.

Well, actually, as explained above, no.

Neither the constitution nor its framers "granted" anyone rights. When you "grant" it's a privilege, not a right.

The Bill of Rights recognizes and protects the rights that free men have by birth, it does not grant them.

Seriously though. Do you really think that the citizens of this country are going to enact a nationwide ban on firearms?

Bans are not enacted by "citizens" but rather by a stratum of self-appointed nannies masquerading as legislators, arrogantly overriding both the spirit and the letter of the Bill of Rights.

An easy way to tell that it's not citizens enacting these bans, is to notice that actual gun-toting law enforcement personnel with the authority to use force are the ones enforcing these bans.

The citizens don't have access to that kind of power.

(Except in one special and rather extreme case which, as it happens, is the very REASON for the Second Amendment.)

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Militia Clause

Actually this has come up before.

In the above-referenced thread, I point out the sentence diagrams that show the "militia clause" as a dependent clause.

There are some pretty exhaustive discussions of this.

The bottom line is that the militia clause provides a supporting reason (that is, an example of why it's vital), not a limiting condition.

Some people, misinterpreting this, conclude that if they can just eliminate the "need" for a milita, they can also eliminate the validity of the Second Amendment.

It doesn't work that way.

Worse, if you found some twisted way to make that stick, it would also be the wedge that allowed invalidation of the other pillars of the BoR (like, oh, free speech).

The D.C. court of appeals was pretty clear on this (if you need a contemporary ruling) and concluded that the 2A does, in fact, enumerate an individual right.

The key word here is "people" as used in the BoR and Constitution. In every case where "people" is used, it refers unmistakably to the individual.

It's a right, it's an individual right, and it's not conditional.

 

[BHPshooter]

*sigh.* :banghead:

Born with? Try again. Any "rights" in our Constitution are things that were agreed upon by the folks that wrote it. Those "rights' can be modified, or eliminated, by Constitutional amendment. I'ts why amending the Constitution is so difficult. It was okay to own slaves, then it wasn't. It was okay to stop women from voting, then it wasn't. It was okay to drink a shot of Jack Daniels, then it wasn't, then it was again. That's just the way things are in this country.

Seriously though. Do you really think that the citizens of this country are going to enact a nationwide ban on firearms?

No, let's have YOU try again. Go back and read the Declaration of Independence, which states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

THAT is why we're in this big mess. It's because there are people like you that don't know the difference between a God-given right and a privelege, and confuse them or use the terms interchangeably.

Rights are something that we are entitled to simply by drawing breath... think of them as a door prize from the Creator. I have this right as long as I continue to draw breath, regardless of what 51% of people think. Even if that right is made "illegal," we still have that right, it's just being trampled.

As for your other comment: Show me ONE country that has had handgun registration (or registration of ANY arms, for that matter) that hasn't led to confiscation.

Registration has always led to confiscation, and confiscation has always led to tyranny or genocide or both. ALWAYS.

And this simply can't go without being further addressed:

I think that any jurisdiction that wants to restrict or ban the possession of any type, or all types, of firearms ought to be able to do so. If you don't like the restrictions, move.

That's cute. One problem, though. There is a document called the Constitution, which states in Article IV that it is The Supreme Law of the Land. Another part of the Constitution says:

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.

Who is the militia? YOU ARE. The Militia Act of 1792 (which still stands) says so. In addition to that, we are not as race or gender blind as we once were, and age means less with the advancements in technology, so we can safely claim that everyone -- male or female -- is a member of the United States Militia.

That means that if one of your la-la land jurisdictions wants to ban guns, that it is in direct conflict with the Constitution, and that the Constitution wins.

And since you're a proponent of voting against peoples' rights at the national level, the Supreme Court has ruled in Marbury v. Madison:

...a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

Game, set, and match. Booyah.

Wes

 

[sm]

omahanew

I am not as articulate as other members that have already shared so much; nor those that are sure to post after me.

I can share a thread with you:

I'm an Anti with Questions.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=332597#post332597

 

[skinnyguy]

Perhaps you will recognize these words;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Powerful words, especially that first sentence! In case you don't know, those are the words of the Declaration of Independence. That document tells us- you, me, and every other person reading it- that we are ALL EQUAL, and we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not say that another person has the right to infringe on your rights. If you care to read the full text, it does in fact explain that the King of Great Britain has infringed all three of the basic rights of all equal men, thereby making necessary the separation of the settlers from British rule. John Hancock named that particular person violating those rights.

Look around you. We have people here and now, TODAY, individuals, organizations, gangs, government and the people in those governmental offices trying to restrict those three basic rights that you and I share. I, for one, do not appreciate those who would deprive me or mine of those rights. Guns are a way- a Constitutionally granted way- to defend against those would deprive me of those rights. I will not infringe the rights of any of you against your rights, except under the sole condition that you might first use what you have against those same rights that belong to me.

 

[230RN]

This bears repeating...

Marko Kloos, posted at his blog (the munchkin wrangler):

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society.

A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

(snip)

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

(italics mine -230RN)

And there you have it.

Now ponder the meaning of the term "the many" in the clause, "automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many."


(Thanks, Art Eatman!)

 

[Byron Quick]

I'm an anti. I support gun control like background checks and such.

I'm not and I don't. I also don't support depriving felons or the mentally ill from owning firearms or depriving them of the right to carry. My position derives from two axioms: 1)Anyone who cannot be trusted with arms cannot be trusted with freedom...period. 2)If you accept those two reason as being adequate reasons for deprivation of rights then all your opponents have to do is broaden the definition of felon and the mentally ill to include you.

Now if you think that is a ludicrous idea, I've a project for you. Make a list of the felonies that were on the books in 1907. It won't take you very long. It's when you start making the 2007 list that your eyes will begin to water and your fingers get numb from typing. Same thing with mental illness. Compare the DSM-IV(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ed. 4) with the DSM-I. The list is growing with leaps and bounds.

Now a lot of the people who are now barred by law from owning firearms would be behind bars or in institutions if things were run according to Byron. But anyone who was released from prison or from a mental institution would have the same rights as everyone else.

Got news for you, if someone can't be trusted with a firearm they can't be trusted with a BIC pen or a nail file. They can't be trusted with long fingernails.

 

[Tharg]

only read the 1st page... =)

in the end its about crime.... anti's think that if you ban guns you ban crime. The last stats i saw on the British says that basically its gone to "disabled/almost-fake-converted guns" and slashing weapons crimes. ya yer not gonna get a V-Tech like killing spree (altho i don't know - the way people are (sheepish usually) someone coming at you w/ a 3' long katana can be pretty intimidating/i'll try to hide reaction) but the number of crimes did not reduce... just changed.. kinda like a drug addict replacing his addiction with something else.

I'll never understand why the gun debate draws more emotion than any other... a gun is a tool, a car is a tool, a knife is a tool... how the tool is used is the question. a car could have plowed into a group of 10000 students and killed 1000 of them... and it would not have received the media attention of the VA-Tech "story"... it would have gotten attention - but not nearly the same. (ok - MAYBE if the car killed 1000 of em.. but say.. 20 ? driven by an old man who forgot which pedal was the brake? ... seriously its mind boggling)

oh well - rambling now..

J