Second Amendment Heroes

[JXJohns]

@haymarketmartyr

Johns

I have no proof that allowing large numbers of people to carry concealed weapons would return us to the days of the old west - be it reality or what is portrayed in film. All I have is no own gut level suspicion that anytime you introduce loaded weapons to a situation where there were no loaded weapons previously, you also increase the chances of lots of bad things happening. Road rage comes to mind right off the bat.

Would it matter that I can provide cites to show the exact opposite to be true?

[Martini_Enfield]

@Argent_Towers

Never once did I say a single damn word about the 1920s and 1930s, so our workers-murdered-by-armed-police-memorializing friend has - as gun opponents are so apt to do - changed the subject.

And don’t forget “Ignoring anyone with valid points they can’t argue with”.

And again, Switzerland has automatic weapons in every home - is Switzerland like the “Wild West?” Why do I keep bringing up Switzerland, a lot of people are probably asking themselves - the answer is because it is eminently relevant to this gun control debate. One of the big arguments that a lot of anti-gunners short on facts but long on emotional appeals use is the idea that simply having lots of guns around leads to gun violence. Bringing up Switzerland forces them to at least admit that there are other factors in play than the guns themselves - there are the people behind the triggers.

New Zealand and Canada also have reasonably (by US standards) permissive gun laws, large numbers of guns in circulation, and low incidences of gun violence.

Also, can we please get rid of this notion that handguns are completely banned in the UK? They aren’t. Cartridge-firing handguns are banned for sporting and self-defence purposes, but there are still blackpowder handgun shooters and collectors with centrefire handguns in the UK. After all, if we’re fighting ignorance, we should do it properly…

[pkbites]

@haymarketmartyr

I stated before, and state again here, that I think there is nothing wrong, and perhaps beneficial, for a person to have a gun in their home or place of business for protection.

And yet, somehow, when those people carry that gun outside of their home or place of business somehow they become a possible homicidal lunatic who can’t be trusted to carry a firearm in public.:rolleyes:

@haymarketmartyr

I have no proof that allowing large numbers of people to carry concealed weapons would return us to the days of the old west - be it reality or what is portrayed in film. All I have is no own gut level suspicion that anytime you introduce loaded weapons to a situation where there were no loaded weapons previously, you also increase the chances of lots of bad things happening. Road rage comes to mind right off the bat.

You say this as though there is no concealed carry in this country. When in fact 48 states allow it, most on a “shall issue” basis, a couple with no license or permit required, and quite a few states having legal open carry, most with no license or permit to do that.
There are millions of people legally carrying guns in public and your scenario just isn’t coming true.

[enipla]

@RE quote = enipla

What in the hell are you going on about to start a thread like this?

Personally, I think you owe a LOT of people at the very least an apology. You have ducked into a room of very intelligent people that have personal ties to this subject.

I’ve never quoted my self before.

It is clear haymarket that you know very, very little about firearms and the laws that regulate them. It is also clear that you refuse to listen to reason from those that understand the issues. That much is quite clear.

If you would like to talk about ammo or gun regulation, please do so. If you want to just tell everyone that “guns are bad”, start a blog. But look up some facts first.

[haymarketmartyr]

from buttonjockey

Oh you betcha, guns were HUGE in Big Al’s day baby and the shooters knew how to shoot 'em. No accidentally wasting little girls at bus stops and crap like that, no sir. Those were criminals that knew how to shoot, by god.

Now who is it that has been watching romanticized Hollywood movies?

[haymarketmartyr]

and folks… I do get what you are telling me … nobody here has any right to express a citizens opinion about guns unless they are a technical expert … yeah, that comes across loud and clear… and so does the reason for that stance.

What you seem to conveniently forget is that all citizens can vote and express their opinion on these things regardless if they are a weapons techie or not. It has something to do with democracy.

[Argent_Towers]

OK…if you want to go through life expressing your views by voting and by being an active democratic citizen, without having any kind of understanding of the specifics of the laws which you are affecting by your votes, fine. We do indeed have the right to do that. I think that’s kind of an irresponsible way of participating in the democratic process, but fine.

Just understand that gun owners and gun advocates don’t like it when the people making the rules about what they can and cannot do don’t know anything about the guns. They are as qualified to dictate gun policy as the Pope is qualified to review the gay bars of San Francisco.

---

███** SIT NOMINE DIGNA **███

[Todderbob]

@haymarketmartyr

and folks… I do get what you are telling me … nobody here has any right to express a citizens opinion about guns unless they are a technical expert … yeah, that comes across loud and clear… and so does the reason for that stance.

What you seem to conveniently forget is that all citizens can vote and express their opinion on these things regardless if they are a weapons techie or not. It has something to do with democracy.

No, we’re not suggesting that people don’t have a right to express opinions about thing they’re uneducated about.

What we’re suggesting is that someone has a moral obligation to look at facts before they express an opinion that directly effects other peoples lives – imagine if I voted to banned stem cell research because it ‘felt like killing babies,’ rather than based in reality that they’re fertalized eggs that would be destroyed anyway, and could save lives.

Further, we’re suggesting that laws should be based in reality, not feeling or fiction or fantasy.

We’re not suggesting that you need to be a ‘weapons techie’ to express an opinion, we’re suggesting that you crack open a damn dictionary and at least define the terms you’re going to use.

We’re suggesting you don’t remain willfully ignorant when most people don’t have a problem taking the 20 minutes required to educate you.

We’re suggesting that you not try to pass moral and ethical judgment on things until you at least try to understand them.

We’re suggesting that before you say “ban guns to save lives,” you look at the history of gun bans to see whether they actually do save lives.

[ExTank]

@haymarketmartyr

If you make an assertion, claim or allegation it is up to you to prove it. I do not do your research to support claims that you make.

The decision is a matter of public record. You wish to argue the facts of somethign with which you can’t even be bothered to look up with a quick Google search?

I seriosuly doubt that you’d read it even if a link were provided.

But, since "Cite!’ was called, here ya go.

District of Columbia et al. v. Heller.

A few select quotes:

@The Supreme Court of the United States of America

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

@The Supreme Court of the United States of America

The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

@The Supreme Court of the United States of America

 2. Prefatory Clause.

 The prefatory clause reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ... ."

 a. "Well-Regulated Militia." In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster ("The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades ... and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations"); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) ("near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands"); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) ("[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms").

 Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that "[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15-16)." Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners' interpretive assumption that "militia" means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create ("to raise ... Armies"; "to provide ... a Navy," Art. I, §8, cls. 12-13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it--and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

 Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 ("Regulate": "To adjust by rule or method"); Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to "a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms").

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

@Martini_Enfield

… Canada also have reasonably (by US standards) permissive gun laws, large numbers of guns in circulation, and low incidences of gun violence.

Canada does? I know a solitary gun collector in Canada, versus the many I knew in the US. Getting a gun takes a fair bit of effort and training. Having lived in both the US and Canada, I am astounded by the statement that Canada has permissive gun laws by US standards. I thought we were the Socialist Menace, come to take the guns and force free health care on you.

[JXJohns]

@Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension

Canada does? I know a solitary gun collector in Canada, versus the many I knew in the US. Getting a gun takes a fair bit of effort and training. Having lived in both the US and Canada, I am astounded by the statement that Canada has permissive gun laws by US standards. I thought we were the Socialist Menace, come to take the guns and force free health care on you.

I appreciate Martini’s views on many things. However, Canada’s gun laws are terrible and a colossal waste of money. That is my opinion of course.

[JXJohns]

@haymarketmartyr

and folks… I do get what you are telling me … nobody here has any right to express a citizens opinion about guns unless they are a technical expert … yeah, that comes across loud and clear… and so does the reason for that stance.

What you seem to conveniently forget is that all citizens can vote and express their opinion on these things regardless if they are a weapons techie or not. It has something to do with democracy.

Come off your cross, it’s not working for you. Nobody is saying you can’t vote, only that your opinions are coming from your gut, which is fine, except you are willfully ignorant on even the basics. This isn’t most of our first rodeo when it comes to this topic, as I and others have said multiple times, we would be happy to give you the 101 version in the hopes of NOT confusing you.

If you choose to remain ignorant, you cannot expect us to play along for much longer.

[enipla]

@ExTank

The decision is a matter of public record. You wish to argue the facts of somethign with which you can’t even be bothered to look up with a quick Google search?

I seriosuly doubt that you’d read it even if a link were provided.

But, since "Cite!’ was called, here ya go.

District of Columbia et al. v. Heller.

A few select quotes:

Hey Tank. I quoted that mess in #307. But it bears repeating. Not that haymarket… pays any attention to it.

@haymarketmartyr

and folks… I do get what you are telling me … nobody here has any right to express a citizens opinion about guns unless they are a technical expert … yeah, that comes across loud and clear… and so does the reason for that stance.

hatmarketmartyr You are wrong. The SDMB is full of gun experts and novices like myself. There are also a lot of members that are lawyers and more than familiar with constitutional law and history.

We are all willing to answer a firearm related question. The thing is, your OP (opening post) was a loaded and offensive question.
And you continue to pound sand.

[ExTank]

@enipla

Hey Tank. I quoted that mess in #307. But it bears repeating. Not that haymarket… pays any attention to it.

So you did; sorry, I was “Out of the Office” all day and quickly skimmed the day’s posts, missing yours.

@enipla

We are all willing to answer a firearm related question. The thing is, your OP (opening post) was a loaded and offensive question.
And you continue to pound sand.

His OP was a thinly disguised rant that should’ve been shitcanned to The Pit where it best belongs; at best it was an IMHO.

[Martini_Enfield]

@JXJohns

I appreciate Martini’s views on many things. However, Canada’s gun laws are terrible and a colossal waste of money. That is my opinion of course.

Oh, I agree completely that the Canadian gun laws are a dog’s breakfast. But I know a lot of Canadian shooters and collectors and I’ve never heard any of them complaining that the laws are especially “unreasonable” (in the way the Australian ones are regarded, for example), or that it was difficult to obtain a firearms licence (the way it is in Australia and UK, for example), or that legally acquiring guns was a headache.

I am also led to believe that long gun registration is about to be repealed (or at least discontinued) in Canada, largely due to non-compliance and unpopularity.

The interesting thing is that Australia actually has a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than Canada, despite the strict laws here.

[enipla]

dog’s breakfast? I’ll guess that that means anything goes and is unpredictable?

Weather I am rigth or wrong. I’m going to start using the term.

My manager asks me if systems are up -

Me - It’s a dog’s breakfast.

I like it.

I’m going to use it for everything.

I finally have the answer and it is not 47. It’s a dogs breakfast.

[Martini_Enfield]

@enipla

dog’s breakfast? I’ll guess that that means anything goes and is unpredictable?

Sort of- it usually means something closer to “A disorganised mess”

So, if your manager asks if the systems are up, you can say “No, the coding is a dog’s breakfast and it’s going to take me all afternoon to sort it out” (for example).

You’re right though, it’s a handy phrase.

[SenorBeef]

@haymarketmartyr

I would simply be happy to see the goal of ending, or at least diminishing, the never ending series of gun massacres that bleed into our national consciousness more often than any rational person wants to see.

Quite frankly, who cares about mass shootings? They’re extremely rare, and they only seem like such a big deal because the media will cover them 24/7 for weeks because they, and the viewers, can’t get enough of the violence porn and those are the most extreme example.

But statistically, who cares? How many people have died in these mass shootings in the last decade? 50? 80? So we’ve got under 100 deaths in a decade from a particular crime. For any other crime, this would not be on anyone’s radar. Thousands of people are assaulted, murdered, raped, etc. every day.

If we assume 100 people have died over the last decade in mass shootings, we’re talking about 10 per year, or .027 per day. How does this compare to other more common and less sensational forms of murder? If you were to graph out deaths by crime type, mass shootings would be a tiny pixel next to huge graph bars. Why does it deserve its own specail brand of legislation?

It doesn’t. Only to people who react emotionally rather than logically are these incidents especially important. It’s like how even though airplanes are extremely safe way to travel, every time one crashes there’s a huge media circus surrounding it, and millions of idiots talk about how they won’t fly because it’s too dangerous - meanwhile they’ll instead drive to their destination which is far more dangerous and results in far more deaths. It’s because they have no perspective on actual dangers or damages, and they can only evaluate things based on their emotional reaction to specific incidents.

[SenorBeef]

@haymarketmartyr

and folks… I do get what you are telling me … nobody here has any right to express a citizens opinion about guns unless they are a technical expert … yeah, that comes across loud and clear… and so does the reason for that stance.

This is a cop out. Your whole argument is “some guns are okay, but some guns are super bad scary death dealing machines that need to be banned” and yet you have no idea how they actually work or why you approve of some weapons and not others, or why some are clearly too lethal and others not.

And when we challenge you on this, saying “no, actually, you’re mistaken, this gun is no different from this other one that you have no problem with” you just say “yeah, whatever, you gun nuts just want to be debate trivial technicalities, I win”.

Your entire point is that some guns are too dangerous. It would make sense if you at least understood the basics of how guns function and why/if one is more lethal than another. But you don’t - you feel qualified to determine what should be legal or not, but you have no idea what you’re actually saying.

But this is how the gun control lobby works, spreading hysteria and exaggerations, and emotional appeal, and when their attacks are met with the facts, they blow it off as “gun lover trivia” or something.

[haymarketmartyr]

from Senor Beef

Quite frankly, who cares about mass shootings? They’re extremely rare, and they only seem like such a big deal because the media will cover them 24/7 for weeks because they, and the viewers, can’t get enough of the violence porn and those are the most extreme example.

But statistically, who cares?

After that - what more needs to be said? It is without a doubt one of most callous, unfeeling and downright mean posts I have ever read. I certainly can add nothing to change such an opinion.

I have come to the conclusion that the world I live in is not the same world that many of you live in.

With that latest post, now I wonder if we are even the same species. I can only hope not.