Glitch wrote, regarding the comma before “shall not be infringed”:
Hmmm … the “Second Amendment–Bearing Arms” .pdf on that page doesn’t have a comma, but the “Text of the Amendments (Literal Print)” .pdf does. Curiouser and curiouser…
The question in my mind is does widespread gun ownership make actual rational sense?
I live in Littleton, where the consequences of the ability of any nutjob to obtain the personal equivalent of weapons of mass destruction are all too apparent.
I’m really not interested in whether you believe you have a God-given right to own a weapon. That’s not a debate point, it’s a unfalsifiable assertion.
This point applies also to indirect rights, such as your God-given right to protect your property, etc. Yes, I agree that in general each person’s property should be protected, but we are debating whether widespread unrestricted gun use is the best method (or even a good method) of doing so.
Constitutional analysis is not very interesting either. The Constitution is not sacred, and arguments based on it are more appropriate for an argument for the Supreme Court. And whether the Constitution does or does not support widespread gun ownership does not in itself constitute an argument for its rational correctness.
I would rather debate a rational analysis. The best basis I can think of is a cost/benefit analysis. And I offer one here:
Benefits
Protection against the government weak
If the government decides oppose you with the Army, or even that most lowly of Federal law enforcement agencies, the ATF, you’re toast. You don’t even have much of a chance, however heavily armed, against your local police department. Whether for good or for ill, armed resistance is futile. You have a much better chance in court, or by using free speech to make your case to the public.
Protection against invasion weak
We have an army for that, demonstrably the best armed forces in the world by a ridiculous margin. If they can’t handle an invader, you can’t either.
Protection against crime weak
We have hundreds of millions of weapons in this country, the vast majority being owned by law-abiding citizens. If weapons themselves were a deterrent against crime, we would expect to see a dramatic difference in our crime rate vs. industrialized democracies with rates of gun ownership orders of magnitudes lower than ours. Even allowing for differences in culture, we have a murder rate up to ten times higher than comparable countries, and a non-murder crime rate that differs by barely statistically significant margins.
Please note that I don’t have any statistics on overall crime rates. If you have some, please let me know.
Self protection in rural areas moderate
In rural and remote areas, police protection is very thin. In this very restricted circumstance, I support the controlled ownership of weapons for self-defense. However, since most people live in urban and suburban areas, this point does not support controlled or
Hunting moderate
I see no compelling reason to restrict the right of people to hunt for other than ecological and safety reasons. However, hunting does not require the use of widespread and unrestricted gun ownership.
If you can come up with other rational benefits, I would be most interested in hearing them.
Costs
Higher homicide rates strong
Our murder rate is five to ten times higher than in comparable industrialized democracies without widespread gun ownership. That’s a lot of people: 13,522 in firearm homicides in 1997 (1).
Higher suicide and accident rates moderate
Again these numbers are dramatically higher in the United States vs. other countries. Note that the accident statistics don’t mention whether the gun user himself was killed or he killed an innocent bystander or family member.
Children strong
Firearm deaths among children aged 14 years and younger in the US vs. 25 other industrialized combined (2) (Notes: the actual numeric quantities are not specifically cited, and I assume “nearly” means rounded to next highest integer, e.g. 11.1 -> 12)
[ul][li]Overall: US is nearly 12 times higher[/li][li]Homicide: US is nearly 16 times higher[/li][li]Suicide: US is nearly 11 times higher[/li][li]Accident: US is nearly 9 times higher[/ul][/li]
Are these children martyrs to democracy, or the tragic human cost of dangerous Foolishness?
Conclusion
According this analysis, the costs of widespread, unrestricted gun ownership vastly outweigh its benefits. If such ownership is Constitutional, the Constitution needs to be changed.
In certain special circumstances, controlled access to weapons poses little threat to others, and the benefits exceed the costs.
Commentary
Please note that I didn’t dig up the statistics to come to these conclusions. Many years ago I wanted to know. I looked up the statistics, analyzed the argments, and came to the conclusion that widespread, unrestricted gun ownership constitutes dangerous Foolishness.
References
(1) Deaths: Final Data for 1997, Donna L. Hoyert, PhD; Kenneth D. Kochanek, MA; et al, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 47, No. 19, June 30, 1999.
(2) Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children–26 Industrialized Countries, MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report), Vol. 46, No. 5, February 7, 1997, pp. 101-105.
Note that I’m not a professional researcher, thus I don’t have access to the source statistics. If anything I’ve cited here has been misrepresented, and you can show me the original source data, I will most humbly retract the specific assertion.
Data cited by the Violence Policy Center
The text should read:
In rural and remote areas, police protection is very thin. In this very restricted circumstance, I support the controlled ownership of weapons for self-defense. However, since most people live in urban and suburban areas, this point does not support widespread uncontrolled ownership of guns.
Singledad,
If it’s any statistical evidence, only 12% of reported violent crime has a firearm involved. Per the FBI Web site stats in 1998.
In addition, violent crime was reduced in one year 6-9% (1997-1998, they don’t have the 1999 figures out yet).
SO, if violent crime, in the definition of gun violence, only represents 12% of all violent crimes then what is the urgency?
I lived about 10-15 minutes from Columbine Singledad, and I think you are using this as a trampoline to be against guns.
If you recall, in the tapes that Dylan and Klebold made they emphatically stated if they hadn’t “gotten” the guns they way they had they would have found another way by which to get them and this I believe. As tragic as Columbine is, it should never be an assumption to restrict law-abiding people from protection.
You also have to remember that they used other forms (homemade bombs) that helped in the chaos that insued, I can’t remember the total of bombs that they found but it was an extremelly high number. These kids didn’t care what happened except they wanted blood, gore and death.
Two days ago a 6 year old killed another six year old…but where did he get the gun? Reportedly from his home, but the gun that he used and another they found in the home were both stolen, so what do you do about this issue? This household was reportedly a “broken” home, the father is in jail. This isn’t a matter of gun control issues, this is a matter of a home life gone terribly wrong.
If anything, then lets give a license to all those that own penises…6% of reported (and many rapes go unreported) are rapes.
Homicides only accounted for 1% of violent crime.
According to the FBI site, 31% of violent crimes were committed with personal weapons, according to the FBI this is defined as hands, fists, feet, etc…
1.5 million violent crimes were reported to agencies. In a nation of a reported 274,334,080 people (as of this writing) that is little more than a half of a percent in the population as a whole.
I am not good at numbers but if only 12% of violent crimes reported within the scheme of a little more than half a percent of the population as a nation, this is a pretty small amount of problems associated with guns. That’s only 180,000 people (I think) of people involved in gun crimes out of a population of almost 280 million people. 180,000 is one small city in the US.
So I ask you and any other pro gun control advocates, where is the urgency? The only reason this is an issue is the media makes it an issue, despite the stats collected by your government.
Sorry that should read Harris and Klebold…been a long day!
Okay, so I looked further into population estimates for 1998 and here’s the scoop.
Guessing, their estimates are goofy, but there were approx. 271,000,000 people…still proves that the violent crime by gun is minimal compared to the population as a whole.
Damn, I can’t let this go since Singledad brought this up…again.
Consider these facts reported by MADD, Singledad.
Singledad, I would be more worried about your neighbor drinking and driving than I would them owning a gun. If the total number of accidents relating to alcohol represent slightly less (representing the entire population of 280 or so million) than violent crime in a single year, your worries are in the wrong place.
I only bring this up as a representation as to where your thinking is off. However, I do believe that if prohibiton in the form of alcohol was reinstated, you would see all stats relating to violent crime rise tremendously.
I’m unable to get your point here. Could I get you to explain this more clearly?
Howdy neighbor! 
But in all seriousness, I didn’t use this anecdote as evidence.
[quote]
**If you recall, in the tapes that Harris and Klebold made they emphatically stated if they hadn’t “gotten” the guns they way they had they would have found another way by which to get them and this I believe. As tragic as Columbine is, it should never be an assumption to restrict law-abiding people from protection.
You also have to remember that they used other forms (homemade bombs) that helped in the chaos that insued, I can’t remember the total of bombs that they found but it was an extremelly high number. These kids didn’t care what happened except they wanted blood, gore and death.**
Citing anecdotal evidence is always chancy, and “would-have-beens” are even more chancy, But really, I find it unlikely that they would have been able to murder 13 people with knives. And they were apparantly very inept bomb-makers: I don’t think any of the bombs went off.
Gun control is not a cure for insanity. I make the point only that the easy availability of guns makes the insane that much more dangerous.
Again, I don’t claim that gun control is a cure for broken homes or other societal ills. I only claim, yet again, that the easy availability of guns makes the consequences of these problems worse.
[quote]
If anything, then lets give a license to all those that own penises…6% of reported (and many rapes go unreported) are rapes.
[/quotes]
That’s not a rational argument. That’s an incredibly bizarre analogy. You can do better.
My government? If crime is so insignificant, why is is it so terribly important for you to own these weapons?
But really, we’re talking maybe 30,000 extra people a year die from the easy availability of guns. I think it’s an incredibly callous attitude to call their deaths “a pretty small amount of problems.”
Actually I worry about them both. And, in fact, I worry about drunk driving far more than I do about gun control. I just haven’t got my knickers in a knot about it since I started my web page.
The big difference is that there aren’t a bunch of yahoos bellowing about their God-given right to drive while drunk out of their skulls (outside of Texas, that is!)
But, according to you, these deaths are also probably statistically insignificant.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
I’m sorry… I’m really not sure what’s up with the quotes… I wish we had a preview option. I’m double-checking them and they seem ok, but the come up weird in the post itself.
I’m not a huge fan of Satan’s but I have to say it:
Satan sure was right on this one.
Singledad,
Does the truth enter into your equation? Your little rant seems more appropriate in a Sarah Brady press release. At least your made up statistics and faulty conclusions could go unchallenged.
What super human brain gives you the power to do no research, admit it, and then type out “fact” statements. To top it off, I love how you so objectively assigned the cost benefit analysis ratings. I had no idea where you stood until wading through all your facts and coming upon your conclusion.
Feel free to move. Some of us actually do take the Constitution fairly serious. Try to ignore the Constitution and I promise you things will get more interesting pretty quick.
This was the only thing that made me think you might be pro-constitution and not rant incoherently against guns. The only people who do approach this rationaly end up on the pro-2nd Amendment side.
It is a damn good thing George Washington never met you. I would hate to imagine the world if he had agreed with your train of thought. And if you think that times are different now…
Have you ever heard of Chechnya? They did a pretty good job. Afganhistan? Vietnam? The IRA? I could go on and on, but the list would get to long. I take it from this also that you do not dispute the correctness in resistance, only that it would be futile. So in 1940 would you knowingly board a train to a nazi concentration camp, or would you rather join a resistance movement?
Our military is also around 1 million strong. There are 80 million gun owners in America. You do the math.
and…
Nice try. Take a look over HERE. That is an online review on John Lott. If you are wading into a supposed rational discussion on firearms and you have never heard of him then you are probably not worth talking to rationaly. He is the only one who has done a study of the ENTIRE United States over the last 18 years and proven a direct link with concealed carry permits and a decrease in violent crime.
Does most mean 51%? Please define your terms. If this effects 49% of the country then I do think it is relevant.
Hunting is often THE ecological solution. Ban hunting and we will have 50 million starving deer getting hit by cars every year.
Check out Japan’s firearm laws and their suicide rate. Then get back to me on where you really stand on this little gem.
Analysis of what? You even start out saying that this is all from memory. No facts, no method, no analysis.
I hear you guys throw your concern with bloodshed into the same breath as your call for appealing the 2nd Amendment. Did you ever hear of the Civil War? Do you think you can just repeal the 2nd and not ignite violence in this country like you have never seen before?
If Kosovo and Chechnya look like desirable vacation spots to you then I can understand your desire to go down this road.
It is 4am. You hear a bump and wake up. You are no fool, you jump to the phone and dial 911. Because of your quick thinking, the cops catch the people who broke into your home 4 minutes after you call. No one else will have to be killed by these guys. Unfortunately, 3 minutes after you called these guys killed you and your kids. Even more unlucky for you, you died last and realized how stupid it is to disarm law abiding citizens in the last seconds of your life.
I’m going to restrain myself respond calmly to your vitriolic and ad-hominem attack.
You characterize my post as a “rant”, you imply I’m ignoring the truth, accuse me of making up facts, you claim I’m incoherent."
I will treat you with more respect than you gave me, and address the points you raise with respect and consideration.
You quote Satan as saying, “Watch the gun control freaks blame it all on guns!” Ignoring the pejorative “freaks”, I don’t blame all of anything on guns. I certainly blame gun deaths on guns. If I’ve blamed a any non-gun-related social issue on guns, again, you are free to point out such an error and I will of course correct it.
I do take the Constitution very seriously. When debating points of law, the Constitution is it. But the Constitution is not holy writ. Proving that the Constitution guarantees everyone a right does not by itself prove that such a right is reasonable.
I’m unable to respond to this point. Show me an opinion presented as fact, and I will humbly either support it with citations or retract it. And, since my conclusion was based on my analysis, it seems natural to present it at the end. I have the suspicion that had I reversed the order, you would have cited such placement as a demonstration that I had manufactured my analysis to produce a conclusion.
Ok, let’s do the math. Assuming you could even unify all the gun owners (a chancy proposition at best), you have 80 million people with no heavy weapons, no command structure, no logistics, against one million of the most highly trained soldiers in the world, with tanks, artillery and air support. I don’t know about you, but in that cirucumstance I’ll put my money on the US Army any day.
You deliberately misrepresent my point on crime. The full quote is:
I stand by my original comment.
Since when do I have to already know all of my opponents’ arguments before being entitled to engage in debate? Part of the purpose of a debate is to learn new information.
Furthermore, I have heard of John Lott, but I have not yet examined his evidence in great detail. Some respectable sources have praised it, some have condemned it, but it certainly deserves a closer look. I thank you for directing me to this important source of information.
You question my assertion that “most people live in urban and suburban areas.” This seems like such a no-brainer that I haven’t bothered to look it up. If you wish to dispute it, point me to the relevant statistics.
You also apparently misread my sentence about hunting. I have no problem with people hunting. Various governmental agencies restrict hunting in various ways (e.g. by issuing a limited number of licenses), and I see nothing objectionable regarding such regulation.
I will accept your assertion that Japan also has an abnormally high suicide rate, which I imagine is of tremendous concern to them. And I expect that sociological research done there has or will explicate the cause. But comparing one anomoly to another does not establish normalcy for either.
First, I’m writing a post, not a research paper. We’ve all had facts & figures bandied about for 20 years. I assumed the basic facts could be assumed. If not, I included a link to the Violence Policy Center which does have an impressive collection of facts.
Secondly, I explicated my method: a cost/benefit analysis. I listed all the benefits I could think of, and evaluated them as rationally as possible. Then I listed the costs and evaluated them. The evaluations I gave reflected my reasoned opinion explicated in attached paragraphs. I then drew a conclusion from my analysis. This is the model of a rational analysis.
I most certainly will welcome a calm and reasoned rebuttal of either my premises, interpretations or conclusions. I don’t claim superhuman knowlege, and I don’t claim my analysis is the last word on the subject, perfect and irrefutable.
This sounds like a threat. As I read this statement, if the second amendment were lawfully repealed, you would engage in treasonous rebellion against the Constitutionally appointed government. And you claim I have no respect for the Constitution?
It’s 4 am. Your phone rings. Sleepily, you pick up your Smith & Wesson thinking it’s the phone and accidentally shoot yourself in the head {Hickory Daily Record, 12-21-92}. Hey, as long as we’re trading bizarre hypothetical situations, I might as well introduce one that’s actually happened.
Based on the hostileI’m going to restrain myself respond calmly to your vitriolic and ad-hominem attack.
You characterize my post as a “rant”, you imply I’m ignoring the truth, accuse me of making up facts, you claim I’m incoherent."
I will treat you with more respect than you gave me, and address the points you raise with respect and consideration.
You quote Satan as saying, “Watch the gun control freaks blame it all on guns!” Ignoring the pejorative “freaks”, I don’t blame all of anything on guns. I certainly blame gun deaths on guns. If I’ve blamed a any non-gun-related social issue on guns, again, you are free to point out such an error and I will of course correct it.
[quote]
Some of us actually do take the Constitution fairly serious. Try to ignore the Constitution and I promise you things will get mor
I apologize for the keybounce when pasting my post from my text editor.
I’ll start out with an article on Japan that is on the web this morning.
Use link for full article.
I just want to dispel the more guns=more suicide myth.
Do you blame pencils for mispelled words? Do you blame swimming pools for drownings? Do you blame cars for taffic accidents?
No, we hold the PEOPLE invovled responsible. Please give me a story of a handgun getting up by itself and killing someone.
Living in a country with 270 million people that is becoming more and more diverse everyday requries an objective standard for us to look at. Our Constitution is that standard. Since we are a country with every religion and non-religion represented, the Constitution is very close to a holy writ.
The Chechans had around 5000 rebels. I say take 10% and the 8 million armed Americans would chew up anybody that tried to repress them. Tanks, artillery, planes and superior firepower only work towards your advantage when the other army is standing across from you. As much as you hate to admit it, I look just like you. Who is the tank going to aim at? Who is the plane going to bomb?
Look at Kosovo if you want to see the trouble NATO is having keeping an area much smaller than America peaceful.
My bet is on the American people.
I know you want to compare this to other countries, but that just doesn’t work. The fact is that we do see a dramatic difference in crime rates between states that have concealed carry laws and those that don’t. Vermont has virtually no law restricting who can carry concealed, yet it has the lowest violent crime rate around.
In addition, I wonder what our crime rate compared to other countries would be if we took cities that have virtually banned guns out of the equation. I bet the crime rate drops through the floor in this scenario.
The Violence Policy Center is not an objective source for facts. They have an agenda and twist things to make them fit their purpose.
Here is a quote from them:
“The call to ban handguns is not inspired by a generalized hatred of guns. It is a response to the blood price that our nation has paid for the explosive growth of the handgun population over the past generation.”
They seem to be slightly further to left on this issue than I am to the right
It is a threat. The best part about it, is that it is not my threat. The threat is implicit in the 2nd Amendment. The founding fathers put it in there. The basic premise was that if the Federal government got too oppresive then the people would have the power to rise up and challenge it.
You and I probably differ on whether or not the Second Amendment COULD be lawfully repealed. Do you think the first Amenedment could be lawfully appealed?
I would even go so far to say that the only true way to respect the Constitution would be to honor our duty as citizens and reject the repeal of any of the Bill of Rights.
Am I to radical for you? Where have I picked up this [shudder on]treasonous[/shudder off] line of reasoning? From the same people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
Go ahead. Advocate gutting our Constitution. From where I am standing advocating the repeal of any of the Bill of Rights is the treasonous thinking. The simple fact is that many people feel the same. You need to know this.
You need to factor this in when the thought crosses your mind that maybe you could pass some law to disarm America.
The irony is that you would vote, express outrage and then send other men with guns to kick in the doors of people who disagree with you. If you are not willing to fight and die for your beliefs then I suggest you don’t come after a large segment of America that is.
I’m sure you are flipping out right now and have labelled me a kook. Just change it around a little bit. Leave the 2nd in place and imagine us repealing the 1st Amendment. Now all printed or published works have to be approved. You have no right to diseminate your thoughts freely.
After all, hate speech leads to violence. People die from dangerous thoughts. Maybe we should join Europe and outlaw certain opinions. Maybe we should have a litmus test for everyone before they are allowed to express themselves.
Hmmm…
Maybe we should not accept this. Maybe we should stand up and fight for our rights. Ooooppppsss…We gave up our arms years ago, I guess we are screwed.
I thought this would fit here. It is amazing what you bump into at the perfect times.
You may want to check out the whole thread. They do a nice job of going through the whole Nazi gun control debate issue. I’m not the only person who sees what the 2nd Amendment is there for.
If Germans had not been disarmed in 1928, then there would have been a different chapter written in the history books about the Holocaust. One of the few times they were able to resist was in the Warsaw Ghetto. They held off the Germans for weeks with only a few guns.
Notice that the Germans were disarmed in 1928, the horrors did not start until 1939. It was a little late by then to arm yourself. The nature of man has not changed in the last 70 years. We have nothing to garuntee us that America will always and forever be safe from this kind of tyranny.
Read the whole thread if you have the time, I would be interested in your thoughts.
Freedom, you have moderated your tone considerably, which fact I recognize and appreciate. I now feel that it is possible to engage in rational debate with you.
Your article proves only that guns are not the only cause of a high suicide rate. It does not disprove the assertion that a high gun ownership rate can be one of many possible causes of high suicide rate.
The first question is specious. I have to answer “yes” to the second two. With no swimming pools or no cars, you have no drownings (ignoring rivers and oceans, etc.), and no traffic accidents.
If I were doing a cost/benefit analysis of swimming pools or cars, I would most certainly include the drowning deaths and traffic accident deaths as a cost.
I will stipulate for the moment that the Constitution is holy writ.
And yea, verily, He said unto the masses, "I tell you the truth, that The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress (Article V)
And He said unto them, "This is true, that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Therefore, by deduction, I have the right to petition the Government to amend the Constitution, and thus I am acting in accordance with holy writ.
And the Russian army, with underfed, poorly trained recruits, a lousy politically controlled command structure, and technically inferior (to ours, not the Chechen’s) weapons, is still kicking their asses.
The Army is a poor instrument for “keeping the peace,” rather, it is an instrument for killing those who oppose you. Kosovo is really not a fair test of the Army’s capabilities.
No, comparison to other countries fails to support your position, so you declare the data irrelevant.
The problem with citing statistics, both pro and con, is that it you have to be very careful about what you’re actually measuring, and carefully control for the influence of extraneous factors in your measurements. In the case of Vermont, you have a remote, cold, less affluent and sparsely populated region. I strongly suspect that these factors contribute greatly to the overall prevalence of crime, both firearm-related and non-firearm related.
A similar circumstance holds in Switzerland, where, although there is widespread gun ownership, that ownership is primarily by ordinary citizens who are also officers in the Swiss Army, and they own and operate their guns under very strict military discipline.
Note that I’m not declaring cross-state information irrelevant across the board, I merely insist that the methodology of the statistics follow proper scientific controls. I apply the same standard to studies that support my position.
You assert that they “twist things to make them fit their purpose.” This sentence explicitly states as “fact” that they are lying, and you offer no evidence whatsoever.
The quote you present is an explicit denial of a bias; whether you believe the denial or not, presenting a denial of bias is not proof of bias.
You are guilty of asserting an opinion as a fact, and I demand that you either offer proof that they have an actual bias and are guilty of lying, or that you retract your statement.
By your logic, anyone who has come to a conclusion, even if that conclusion is based on an analysis of factual information, cannot then argue for the validity of their conclusion.
I’m going to go way out on a limb here, and presume that you support the right of ordinary, law-abiding citizens to own guns with few or no restrictions. And I’ve made myself clear that I oppose such a right. Therefore, by your reasoning, we both have an agenda, and neither of us is an “objective source of facts,” and therefore neither of us have any basis for engaging in a rational discussion.
I suspect, however, that you accuse them (and me) of twisting the facts and having a bias merely because we disagree with your conclusions.
Yes, we do differ. First, yes, the First Amendment can be lawfully amended, according to Article V of the Constitution. I don’t support the First Amendment because it’s in the Constitution. I support the First Amendment’s inclusion in the Constitution because I support its underlying premise: That free speech is an efficient and peaceful method whereby the individuals of the citizenry, from which government power arises, may express and negotiate their concerns, Also, I believe that if government were to abridge free speech in any way, they would do so not to protect the populace from “bad ideas”, but to suppress criticism of their own actions, thus usurping the basic power of the citizens to control their government.
[quote]
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 shal
I am happy to go on, but I have one stand alone question that I would like answered first.
What was the reason for including the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights?
Singledad,
My time is limited at the moment, call me silly but I am coloring my hair! Seriously!
Anyhow, please read through my posting again, you asked for figures I gave them to you…this is paramount to understanding my post.
I will check back and read through more of what has been posted in the last few days, I am in the middle of helping a political campaign so my time is even more limited…hey, I need to look good while helping out my favorite candidate
You have several posts since or immediately before mine, with some statistics. However, I’m not sure how your statistics match up to your points.
I’m not questioning your research or the validity of your arguments, I’m just not clear on what exactly you’re saying. I would be much obliged if you might sum up.
Hey Singledad,
Could you please answer the question I posted up there?
<shrugs> I’m not sure, and I don’t think the question is relevant. Economics, culture, technology were very different then.
However, I could be wrong. If you want to make a point, go ahead and make it.
Remember, though, I won’t accept a 200 year-old analysis unless the conditions of that analysis apply to today. The framers of the Constitution were brilliant people, and they got a lot of things right. But 27 amendments have proved them fallible.