ok…all you people out there FOR gun control… RIGHT ON! I live in america and personally think that there is way too many people who take advantage of our “right to own guns” or so they think and many people arn’t very educated about it. “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.” a well regualted militia. When this law/amendment/right (whatever you prefer) was made…it was intended for an army aka well regulated militia. I dont think we should ban handguns just learn to use them right. People say well it’s our right. Yes it is, but all rights come with responsibilitys…i.e. you have the right to drive a carbut you DON’T have the right to drive on the wrong side of the road! catch my drift? now automatic weapons… that’s a different story… these should be banned. why? well you tell me why not? what’s the purpose of a machine gun? population control? hunting? are you really that bad of a shot? comon you have to agree with me on that one at least. Thank you for taking the time to look at this and if you have time lpease respond. I like a good argument. Thank You
SUAVESKIN
As to automatic weapons, the purpose of the militia is to fight enemies of the people. They most likly will have automatic weapons so it would be a good idea to have them also and maybe a few RPGs. If the 2nd amendment was defended as much as the 1st, we would all be required to keep nukes in our homes.
ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM EST
SuaveSkin: Hold onto your hat, you’re in for a bumpy ride. I’ll do what I can to help, and point out the egregious errors in yours and your oppositions’ statements. Of course, if you’re just trolling, you’ll be gone soon enough.
Some suggestions: Use proper grammar, sentence structure and paragraph structure. Stick to simple declarative sentences, and separate different points into different paragraphs.
Cecil Adams is considered a strong authority here. Always research The Straight Dope Archives, specifically:
Original intent of Second Amendment
Original intent of Second Amendment (cont’d)
Make damn sure that if you post an assertion that’s statisically testable, that you cite those statistics.
Keep to the high ground: avoid using propaganda, especially inflammatory anecdotes.
If you’re serious about defending your position, I’m happy to help. Don’t troll out on me.
If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him
OK, let’s rock.
SuaveSkin, you say:
What is your basis for the belief that “militia” and “army” are the same thing? Are you aware that at the time the Second Amendment was drafted, the militia was composed of able-bodied men, and there was no standing army?
If you accept my interpretation, would you like to re-state your position? And if you do not, please explain why you do not.
- Rick
You are so right. There are also way too many people abusing the right to speak and practice their religions freely. And too damned many people abusing their right not to testify against themselves. Too many people taking advantage of the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to a speedy trial in front of an impartial jury. And too God damned many women, blacks and orientals taking advantage of those stupid amendments that let them vote.
Have I made my point yet? No? Ok, hang on, I have more.
(bolding & italics mine)
Do you see any sort of pattern? Yeah, that’s right, the words THE PEOPLE. I think it’s fairly clear that in each instance, it is talking about THE PEOPLE, not the government. For example, let’s make the same substitution in any of these other amendments that you make with the 2nd:
AMENDMENT IV
The right of the government to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…
Nope, doesn’t seem to work. Let’s try another one:
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting…the right of the Government peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Huh. That doesn’t work either. The 2nd Amendment is no different. It speaks CLEARLY, in plain English, of the people. The same people mentioned in the other instances:
I honestly do not understand why this is so difficult for otherwise intelligent, educated, logical, and reasonable adults to understand.
A couple other minor points:
From the United States Code, Title 10, Section 311, paragraph (a),
That means WE are the militia. You, me, everybody described in that paragraph.
No, I don’t agree with you there either. True, a machine gun has no place in hunting. But the 2nd Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with hunting. Its purpose is to defend the Nation against a government that is bent on robbing the people of Liberty. The reason all people have the right to arm themselves with any weapons they choose is that, in order to defend yourself against your government, you need weapons on the same playing field, or at least the same sport. The colonists used the same rifles that the British Army used against them. They weren’t restricted to bows or rocks. They were using State-of-the-art Military rifles.
And When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, it will be necessary for them to be armed to the same degree as their oppressors.
Remember the “shot heard round the world”? The American Revolution was sparked by the British Army marching to seize the Armory at Lexington.
To close, let’s find out what the framers of the Constitution really had on their minds when they drafted it:
Don’t forget that Gun control and citizen disarmament started the first revolution.
The history of the militia in the United States: http://www.militia-watchdog.org/faq3.htm
Joe_Cool:
The Straw Man fallacy.
Unfortunately, Suave, you’re trying to argue the Constitutionality of gun control. That’s a pretty weak argument, and Joe_Cool’s refutation is very strong.
There are really only two tactics to take: To argue for a radical reinterpretation of the Second Amendment, or to argue for its repeal.
I take from your original post that you are arguing the former: The “well regulated militia” being more strongly operative than in the current interpretation. This is a very difficult argument to make, and really matters only when it’s made to the Supreme Court.
I’ve found it more effective to argue for the repeal of the Second Amendment, making the text of the Constitution, its interpretation by the Supreme Court, and the intentions of the Founders irrelevant as authorities.
I wish to point out to the gun-control opponents that the reasons the Constitution and the Founders remarks that speak to those reasons still remain a relevant argument.
If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him.
Oh and Joe:
Unproven, and somewhat inflammatory. If you have a case, make it. If you have to resort to propaganda and veiled threats, you will only weaken your position.
If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him.
As a psuedo-libertarian. I am against many gun laws. Most do nothing to prevent violence/crime, and they add a burden onto the law abiding citizen, and worse, can turn a law-abiding citizen into an inadvertant criminal.
However, some weapons, such as bombs, cannons, machine-guns, nerve gas- present a danger to society all out of proportion to any possible value.
Filling out a form when you 1st buy a gun also seems a small price to pay. However, ex-post facto demanding registration of guns, and thus making criminals out of those who cannot/willnot comply, is unfair.
Banning the manufacture or import of certain guns seem not to be unfair, but banning the possesion of such weapons by those who purchased them legally is not.
Unfortunatley, the gun control debate seems to have 2 sides only: A- ban them all, & B- Lets us buy & own anything at anytime. Is there no one else in the “middle”? (I am probably slightly leaning toward the pro-gun camp, myself, but…)
I wouldn’t put machine guns in the same category as nerve gas. In Israel and (I believe) Switzerland, fully automatic firearms are completely legal for civilians to posess.
Much of the stigma associated with fully-automatic rifles stems from imagined scenarios of a madman opening up on full auto and killing hundreds of people as he keeps the trigger pulled over the course of several minutes. In real life, the magazines for military assault rifles (such as the M-16) usually have a capacity of only 20-30 rounds of ammunition. (There are a few 100-round giant magazines out there, like the drum magazine on the old Thompson submachine gun, but these are very heavy and largely impractical.) Fired on continuous full-auto, a normal military-sized magazine will run out of ammo in a few seconds. Furthermore, most rounds fired on full-auto will miss their targets; ironically, the madman with a machine gun will hit fewer people than the madman with a semi-automatic, because a semi-auto will give him more incentive (and more of a chance) to aim each shot. He would have to be bulging with pre-loaded magazines to sustain a shooting spree with a machine gun. (Either that, or use a chain-fed gun, which would be even heavier than an assault rifle with a 100-round giant magazine.)
Granted that seizing the armory wasn’t the only reason for the revolution, but it is a simple matter of historical fact that it was the spark which ignited the actual battle. There had been no overt hostilities until the attempt to seize the armory. At that point the colonists made the decision to proceed from an uneasy peace into all-out war, the choice between submitting to the wishes of the King and taking up arms to defend Liberty, based on the British attempt to disarm them.
Was my statement inflammatory? Perhaps. My apologies for that. But that does not make it any less factual.
Mere Life is not Victory.
Mere Death is not Defeat.
Joe Cool
Singledad, I’m trying to read your link, but can’t get through. I will though, when I’m able.
Mere Life is not Victory.
Mere Death is not Defeat.
Joe Cool
tracer:
From The Swiss and their Guns (which is quoted from American Rifleman and posted by a pro-gun organization in New Zealand:
Indeed. The document paints a picture of a nation in which the historical culture both strongly reduces the motivations for crime, and in which the proper usage of guns has become ingrained into the national psyche.
“{pro-gun Americans} cannot expect to win the American gun argument with the Swiss example.”
Indeed not. None of the culture prevalent in Switzerland, the long tradition of the populace defending the nation, the historical roots in the community, and the authoritarian Swiss culture obtain in America.
The article makes other conclusions which I disagree with, but their analysis of gun-owning conditions in Switzerland seems thorough and plausible.
tracer:
[quote]
Much of the stigma associated with fully-automatic rifles stems from imagined scenarios of a madman opening up on full auto and killing hundreds of people as he keeps the trigger pulled over the course of several minutes.
[quote]
Joe_Cool: By the same token, World War I started because of a handgun in the hands of a madman. It’s a weak argument. All wars have complex causes.
The inflammatory part is the veiled threat tp start a rebellion if your interests are abridged.
If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him.
well i never said ban automatic weapons for miltia, but for the people. the miltia has every right to have any type of gun!
able bodied men in some form of organized group not nesseceraly an “ARMY” that doesn’t mean every single person can own a gun just those in the miltia.
I consider myself “in the middle” on this argument. It is a fairly easy target to hit considering how extreme the “wings” are. I do not believe that any personal weapon which fits into the category “firearm” should be denied to competent, law-abiding citizens. I think that every gun should be registered and that losing control of your gun and failing to notice that fact and report it to the proper authorities in a timely manner should be a felony with no punishment save the removal of your right to bear arms.
I disagree. If the law of the land becomes registration then those who “will not comply” have made themselves criminals. There is nothing unfair about requiring compliance with new laws. Registration does not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. It simply adds an element of accountability. That ii appropriate. Taking the power to kill into your hands is a choice which should be accompanied by great responsibility.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
today i talk about the
Effectiveness of Gun Control because many people belive it wont work:
Expectations about the effectiveness of stricter gun control were measured by six questions: If there were stricter regulations for authorized firearms owners, would you say that the violent crime rate would increase, decrease or stay the same? Do you agree or disagree that Gun control laws affect only law-abiding citizens as criminals will always be able to get firearms? Do you agree or disagree that stricter gun control would greatly reduce the level of violence against women in Canada? How effective do you think stricter regulations would be in Reducing suicides? Reducing homicides? Reducing accidents?
While a slight majority felt that stricter regulations for gun owners would not affect the violent crime rate, and three-quarters felt that criminals would still be able to get guns, opinion was about evenly divided on whether violence against women would be reduced.
On the other hand, 44% percent thought stricter regulations would be effective in reducing suicides, 68% in reducing homicides, 74% in reducing accidents. These answers have to be characterized as wishful thinking. Very few of our respondents know what the current regulations are, probably fewer still know much about the dynamics of firearms homicide, suicide and accidents.
1991: estimated total number of guns in Canada that were used in violent crime, 0.3%. gun control is working for canada why wont it worik for america?
thanx 
-suaveskin
biliography:
Cdn-Firearms: Research related to “gun control”
Http://teapotusask.ca/cdn-firearms/HTML/reaserach1.html
forgot to post the address, sorry!
please respond if you have time. I appreciate it thanx
-suaveskin
The estimated number of guns was 0.3%?!
How much is 0.3% of a gun? That’s, what, a little sliver of the handgrip?
that is meant to say gun deaths … sorry
-suaveskin