We can go back and forth on this all day as to whether or not the founders, for some reason decided to put some unnecessary words in there that have no meaning to the amendment. Personally, I think that the words there mean something, but I keep seeing the argument that those words must have been put there by accident, or as some sort of rhetorical flourish.
I’d say that that did seem to be what the founders intended. That the militia is regulated by the state, and there were states that had laws against gun ownership while the FF’s were still alive and kicking and more than able to voice their objection.
And state constitutions are much easier to change than the US constitution.
Do you own those things? How about a fire extinguisher? Do you wear a seat belt when in a car? I mean, if you castigate gun owners for not covering every possible eventuality, then I call you out as a hypocrite if you do not lead a life of reckless abandon through which you careen with no concern whatsoever for your safety.
This is utter nonsense.
Listing at least one reason, comma , a citizens right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Has nothing to do with accidents or unnecessary words.
If it were meant to be exclusive it could just say, a militia members right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The intent was obviously to keep citizens armed so they could be called upon to form militias when needed.
In the most literal sense you could say that they only specifically protect that right to anyone who’s eligible for the draft or willing to be drafted I suppose.
…and that is your rather uninformed opinion. Personally, I think that pretending that a phrase of the constitution doesn’t exist because you don’t like it is utter nonsense, but YMMV.
So, you are in the “rhetorical flourish” camp.
Well I thought they put the words in there for a reason, it is you who think that they are meaningless.
No, their intent was specifically to appease the states that were worried that the federal govt would pass gun laws that would leave them at the mercy of the native population they were actively attempting to genocide, the humans that they had chosen to treat as property, and other nations that may desire to acquire some new holdings. they were concerned that if the federal govt were to pass laws limiting guns, then the state may not be able to raise its militia to deal with a slave revolt or native uprising.
The states did not want the federal govt to dictate to the states gun policy. So, the amendment specifically puts gun policy int he hands of the states, the same hands as the militia is in.
No, in the most literal and historical sense, you would say that they only protected the right of the states to regulate their respective militias, including the type and form of armament.
So, you should take your “utter nonsense” about what the founding fathers intended, and tell that to the founding fathers who engaged in the exact nonsense that you declare to be utter.
In 2015 there were about 2,904,570 home burglaries, with about 1.3 million burglaries at night, which means the odds are someone was home. There are about 127 million households in the US so in round numbers 1 in every 127 home will have a burglary, that happens at night. So, a 1 is 127 chance of A. a burglary, and B. you’re home.
Now they MIGHT be scared off by a dog, or maybe when they realize you’re home. Or they might decide for whatever reason it’s worth the risk.
Now nobody is forcing you to get a gun, if you don’t want one, that’s your choice, but I’m of the school I would rather have a gun and not need it, then need it and not have it.
Are you also considering the downsides of having a gun? Sure, if there are no downsides, then have a gun. But what about if a child finds it, a depressed house member uses it for suicide, accidental discharge, accidentally shooting a house member that you mistakenly thought was an intruder, etc. Do you seriously consider those downsides when you decide to have a gun?
No children here. No house members here, depressed or otherwise. I don’t fidget with loaded guns, so accidental discharges are vanishingly unlikely. I’m not seeing a downside. But while we’re going down that particular checklist for the umpteenth time, you forgot a great favorite of the antis: “What if the burglar takes it from you and kills you with it???!!11”
That was in reply to this part of your post “Wouldn’t it be great if we could come up with some sort of policy or way to reduce the guns that get into the hands of criminals?”
And yes a gun MIGHT misfire, but I’m not going to pin my hopes on that that. And yes you might survive a gun shot, again I’m not going to pin my hopes on that.
And for the last part you’re being silly, but there are people who have pulled guns on speeder, and speeders who have pulled guns on other people.
And being aware of what’s happening around you isn’t paranoia, it’s really the first thing they teach you in self-defense, be aware of what around you, so if I saw a speeder (as in your example) I would let him pass. Now if said speeder pulled in front of me and tried to stop me (assuming it wasn’t a police car) and I couldn’t get away, then what? BTW the second thing they teach you in self defense is that a fight that doesn’t happen because you walked away, is a fight you won.
Same could be said for a dog, or a car, or electricity…do you know how many electrical housefires there are?, Kids hospitalized by dogs, people killed in car crashes?
What if a depressed person finds that emergency rope ladder i bought for second story fire escapes , or kids use it and fall, falls result in more deaths than gunshots and fires.
Things like dogs, cars, and electricity provide value on a continual and ongoing basis. A dog doesn’t stay in a closet until an intruder comes in. A dog provides a lot of enjoyment every day. Same with electricity and cars. I use those things greatly every day. There’s a 99.99999% chance I will use them successfully and a minuscule chance they will result in an unintended death in my household.
Even kitchen knives are used every day. In my lifetime, I have not known anyone killed with kitchen knives even though that’s always a risk. Since the utility of kitchen knives is astoundingly greater than the minuscule chance they will be used for harm, we all use them and have them in our homes.
But the chance of using a gun against an intruder is much smaller, which means it’s useful probability is much closer to its harmful probability. If there was a 50/50 chance your dog would hurt someone, not many people would have dogs. The same for cars and electricity. If you had a 50/50 chance of dying in a car or an electrical fire, not many people would have them.
I don’t see how it addressed it. My point is that if we have some sensible gun laws, like requiring that transfers be reported, then fewer guns get into the hands of criminals, and such confrontations become much rarer.
Take that line up with HurricaneDitka. He’s the one that says that you are wrong, you should admit it, and move on. He was confused, and was thinking that I had made the claim of “BANG you’re dead”, and was trying to refute that claim when he thought it was mine. I made no such claims.
I’m not being silly, I am asking you what other crimes you conflate. You are claiming that if someone breaks a law, then they have no respect for the law, and will break all laws. As ridiculous as that idea is, I still didn’t have the disrespect to call you “silly” over it.
Do you really do feel that someone who is speeding is a criminal no different than any other, and is just as likely to murder you and your family?
Your contention is that if someone is burglarizing your home, then they have no respect for human life, and will be more than happy to kill you, and it seems as though you also implied they’d be raping your daughter as well.
I disagree. I think that most people burglarize your home want a few items to sell to score some drugs. They have no interest in causing harm that will increase their chances and consequences of being caught.
Be aware of what’s around you, sure. But they don’t tell you to be terrified of everything around you. You took the wrong lesson from that self defense class you took. There is the first thing that they teach you, but then there are other things as well that you are also supposed to remember.
Using a gun against an intruder isn’t the only utility they provide. I enjoy target shooting. I do it often. Other people hunt frequently, or enjoy collecting / building firearms.
I would agree that if the gun provides a lot of utility, then the slim chance of harm may be worth it. That’d be like having a boat. There’s always the chance someone will fall over and drown, but boats also bring a lot of enjoyment on a continual basis. The enjoyment is much greater than the chance of harm, so it seems worth the minuscule chance someone may drown.
But if the only reason someone has a gun is for an intruder, then it doesn’t seem like it’s worth it. If guns are your hobby and you have fun with them, then you are getting a lot more value from it than just being able to repel an intruder. But if it sits in your nightstand for years (along with the associated maintenance), it may never get used for an intruder. If the only positive use to the person is for an intruder, then they aren’t getting much utility out of the gun on a regular basis. That person should evaluate that small positive utility against the negative risks of having a gun.
I find myself questioning whether the guns one is likely to use for self-defense are the same ones used for all these activities. Which is not to say that one couldn’t stare down an intruder over a hunting rifle; I just question whether that’s likely the gun they’d be using for that purpose. Of course if the guns aren’t used for home defense they’re not part of this discussion.
And, of course, if the argument is “guns aren’t useful enough to justify the risk”, then saying “I have lots of uses for guns that anti-gun people don’t have” results in an argument that’s not particularly relevant in a thread about how anti-gun people deal with threats.
Might want to re evaluate those miniscule chances.
Here’s the top ten causes of accidental death.
Motor vehicles are number 2
Fires are number 6
Firearms don’t even make the list.
800,000 dogs in the US, 224,000 dog bites that warrant hospital treatment so about 25 percent chance.
Like anything else, it’s what you do to manage those risks.
The Washington Post called a reasonable number of defensive gun uses according to NCVS around 100,000
While the LA Times said about 8 percent of those actually resulting in killing or wounding an attacker.
Note these are likely downplayed estimates since the sources are notoriously liberal.
Personally I use the same one for nearly everything but target shooting.
It’s a short , low caliber , lever action shotgun
Works great for hunting any thing from squirrel to deer, and defense. Long enough it can’t flip around Willy nilly like a handgun, but short enough for enclosed areas, maybe a touch shorter than an m4 ( not sure on that)
Besides I feel shotshell with a tight pattern is probably the most effective defensive round, without posing the danger of going through the next 4 walls it encounters, or knocking a small framed firer on their own ass.
I use to be in the habit of open carry of a handgun but just kind of slowly quit.
Regan was surrounded by expert bodygaurds, all carrying semi-auto guns, when he was shot. It was just luck that he wasn’t killed. That’s how safe guns make you.