# Toss up your reasons NOT to allow concealed carry, and I\`ll (heh) shoot them down. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 4, 2004, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437 "2004-02-04T04:02:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/181 "2004-02-15T17:55:41Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > You have to look at the history, and the fact is that the Second Amendment was added because of fears that the newly-formed federal powers would eclipse the powers of the states, resulting in the state militias being disarmed. There’s a very clear reason why the word “militia” is in there, it’s not just an extraneous bit to be ignored. I have to pipe in again, and say that I agree with your words here, **blowero** , but not your conclusion. In looking through the history did you find many cites which refered to the militia as the modern concept of a standing army? It seems to me that a careful reading of history might give credence to the argument that the militia, while not a direct drop in replacement for “the people”, was not meant as a restricted state institution either. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/182 "2004-02-17T07:54:01Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > So now, I would request from you a “cite” of the NRA talking point that I “regurgitated”. Sure. From the NRA website: > [@](#): > > The language and intent of the framers of the Second Amendment were perfectly clear two centuries ago. Based on the English Common Law, the Second Amendment guaranteed against federal interference with the citizen`s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. That’s undoubtedly what you were trying to get at; you just articulated it very poorly. > [@](#): > > You’re now referencing Michael Bellesiles, a so-called professor of history, in support of your contentions. Funny thing about Bellesiles, the “research” for his book, “Arming America”, subtitled: “The Origins of a National Gun Culture”, was deemed so fraudulent, he was forced to resign his position at Emory University. Yes, **BF** did a good job discrediting that source, and _you_ did a good job…uh, what was it you did? Oh, yeah - you _repeated what BF said_, except you acted like _you_ came up with it. I guess I can congratulate you on being able to mimic other people’s posts really well. Of course, you still haven’t provided any evidence that the citizens of the colonies had an unlimited right to own guns. > [@](#): > > If your contention were true, then explain why the original colonies, which became states, demanded that the Constitution be amended to prevent the government from infringing on "the right of **the people** to keep and bear arms? First of all, the “original colonies” didn’t _all_ collectively demand that; a particular faction called the Anti-federalists did. And let’s turn your question around: If the Second Amendment is intended to protect the right to personal self-defense, then why are the words “well-regulated militia” in there? > [@](#): > > And please do note, the Amendment does say **the people** , not the state. And please note that it says “well-regulated militia”, not “individual unconnected gun enthusiasts”. > [@](#): > > I don’t have any trouble focusing. What you did, was to dodge the issue by saying that, “We’re talking about state legislation, not federal.”, when the Fourteenth Amendment ties the two together. Oh, I see - when you completely muddle things and claim fictitious discussions that never happened, then _I’m_ dodging the issue. Yeah, right.:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Now, it is obvious that you believe that private citizens should not be allowed to possess guns for any reason. You are of the ilk that thinks that only government officials should possess guns. Therefore, being in the position of defending the indefensible, you choose to hide behind the notion that “we” are discussing state law, not federal. Well, as for the “right to keep and bear arms”, the two are intertwined. Wow, do you ever have trouble following a train of thought. Absolutely nothing in that last paragraph of yours is true. Nothing. “Intertwined”, my ass. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/183 "2004-02-17T08:12:45Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > Quoting court rulings and “interpretations” does not contradict the notion that both the federal legislature and, via the Fourteenth Amendment, state legislatures are prohibited from infringing on the peoples right to keep and bear arms, when legislatures legislate and courts rule in sympathy to certain agendas, just as was done with the “Lautenberg Amendment”. > > The “Lautengerg Amendement” is blatantly unconstitutional, but it is allowed to stand because, well, this is how they wish things to be. Again, your argument is hopelessly confused. First, you argued that this Lautenberg Amendment was an ex post facto law; now you are somehow vaguely trying to connect it to the 14th Amendment. And what’s hilarious is that you continue to argue the point against _nobody_. Nobody has even contested your assertion, yet you continue to bandy it about as though it were in contention. Quite a masturbatory debating style you have. If you want people to take you seriously, stop with the obfuscation, strawmen, and red herrings. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/184 "2004-02-17T09:03:41Z")
And just to be clear what’s going on here (because I know you’ll try to misrepresent the argument): _If_ you are saying that this Lautenberg Amendment is unconstitutional because it violates the 2nd Amendment, then every argument we have made so far regarding the 2nd Amendment would apply, so it’s just more of the same. But if you are saying that it is unconstitutional for some _other_ reason, then it’s not germane to the present discussion, and nobody is disagreeing with you. It’s kind of like this: “Chewbacca is seven feet tall.” “Well, I don’t really know how tall Chewbacca is, so I can neither agree nor disagree. It’s not germane to the discussion anyway.” “WHY ARE DODGING THE CHEWBACCA ISSUE?” ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/185 "2004-02-17T13:47:47Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Again, your argument is hopelessly confused. First, you argued that this Lautenberg Amendment was an ex post facto law; now you are somehow vaguely trying to connect it to the 14th Amendment. And what’s hilarious is that you continue to argue the point against _nobody_. Nobody has even contested your assertion, yet you continue to bandy it about as though it were in contention. Quite a masturbatory debating style you have. If you want people to take you seriously, stop with the obfuscation, strawmen, and red herrings. Gosh, you really do have a problem with comprehension. I was clearly using the Lautenberg Amendment to illustrate how those who portray themselves as guardians of the Constitution, don’t really give one whit about the Constitution, as long as their agenda is advanced. Furthermore, when the adherents of the agenda resort to citing legislation and court “interpretations” and rulings, the Lautenberg Amendment illustrates that both the legislature and judiciary will prostitute themselves to an agenda at the expence of the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/186 "2004-02-17T14:11:33Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Sure. From the NRA website: > > That’s undoubtedly what you were trying to get at; you just articulated it very poorly. > > Yes, **BF** did a good job discrediting that source, and _you_ did a good job…uh, what was it you did? Oh, yeah - you _repeated what BF said_, except you acted like _you_ came up with it. I guess I can congratulate you on being able to mimic other people’s posts really well. Oh, I’ve been at this for a long time. Check it out. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=3773894&highlight=Michael+Bellesiles#post3773894](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=3773894&highlight=Michael+Bellesiles#post3773894) Let’s see… 30 July, 2003 Doggone it, you almost scored a point. > [@](#): > > Of course, you still haven’t provided any evidence that the citizens of the colonies had an unlimited right to own guns. No, I just provided evidence that the government was prohibited from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. > [@](#): > > First of all, the “original colonies” didn’t _all_ collectively demand that; a particular faction called the Anti-federalists did. Doesn’t matter if “all” wanted it or not, the Second Amendment was ratified by enough to become the law of the land. > [@](#): > > And let’s turn your question around: If the Second Amendment is intended to protect the right to personal self-defense, then why are the words “well-regulated militia” in there? The Amendment was not needed to protect the right to personal self-defense, that was one of those inalienable rights. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, just as it says. The Amendment also protects the right of the people to form well regulated militias for the security of “the free state”. And that would include securty against a tyrannical government. > [@](#): > > And please note that it says “well-regulated militia”, not “individual unconnected gun enthusiasts”. And the militia has already been defined numerous times in this thread. And as I previously pointed out, the militia is dependent on the people having arms, not the vice versa as you are trying to imply. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/187 "2004-02-17T19:23:33Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > Gosh, you really do have a problem with comprehension. > > I was clearly using the Lautenberg Amendment to illustrate how those who portray themselves as guardians of the Constitution, don’t really give one whit about the Constitution, as long as their agenda is advanced. The word “clearly” doesn’t belong in there; nothing you write is clear. I don’t even know where to start pointing out the problems with your argument. First of all, I have no idea who “those who portray themselves as guardians of the Constitution” are (and I don’t think _you_ have any idea what you meant either). Are you talking about the legislative branch? the judicial branch? activists? Some mysterious conspiracy? Second, I can’t believe that you are seriously arguing that _one_ example where you think an unconstitutional law has been passed somehow invalidates _every_ other court ruling on gun laws ever handed down. In fact, you’re not even clear on whether you’re criticizing the _courts_, or _Congress_. Third, you still haven’t coherently explained _why_ you think this law is unconstitutional; as I said, if it’s a Second Amendment issue, then I don’t think it’s a valid objection for all the reasons I’ve stated over and over in this thread; and if it’s _not_ a Second Amendment issue, then it’s not relevant to any argument _I_ have made in this discussion. Fourth, you know perfectly well that I brought up the history of court rulings only to counter **ph317** ’s reliance on one obviously-biased Congressional committee report. Ph317 and I both agreed that such appeals to authority do not prove one’s case in and of themselves. In fact, I said: > [@](#): > > Not that appeal to authority is the final say anyway (as you said), but if we’re citing authorities, it comes down to yours vs. mine, and doesn’t definitively answer the question. But as usual, the gist of the discussion just flew completely over your head. Nobody can argue with you on this, because you have failed to advance any kind of cogent argument. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/188 "2004-02-17T19:49:21Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Third, you still haven’t coherently explained _why_ you think this law is unconstitutional. Oh, I “clearly” explained _why_. > [@](#): > > The “Lautenberg Amendment” was legislation that made it unlawful for those previously convicted of an act of “misdemeanor” domestic violence to possess a firearm. > > Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution expressly forbids the enacting of “ex post facto” law. The Lautenberg Amendment, by levying an additional penalty to those convicted of a previous act, is ex post facto. But hey, lets not have the Constitution get in the way of the “agenda”. See, I keep tellin’ ya, it’s your lack of the ability to comprehend that is giving you a problem. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/189 "2004-02-17T19:57:16Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > No, I just provided evidence that the government was prohibited from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In your dreams… > [@](#): > > Doesn’t matter if “all” wanted it or not, the Second Amendment was ratified by enough to become the law of the land. What _matters_ is your continued vague, sloppy arguments. You say some crap like the “original colonies” “demanded” something. That’s utter horseshit. You say it to try to advance your argument, then when I call you on it, you say it “doesn’t matter”. If it doesn’t matter, then don’t say it. > [@](#): > > The Amendment was not needed to protect the right to personal self-defense, that was one of those inalienable rights. This is simply a fallacious _argument by assertion_. > [@](#): > > The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, just as it says. The Amendment also protects the right of the people to form well regulated militias for the security of “the free state”. Wrong. Look at your Bill of Rights. The other amendments that include _multiple_ rights use _conjunctions_ like “and”, “or”. If the Second Amendment were intended to simply state two seperate ideas, it would have the word “and” in it. There’s no conjunction in there. It doesn’t say “bear arms” AND “form militias”. It does not “also” protect the right to form militias; that’s _all_ it does. > [@](#): > > And the militia has already been defined numerous times in this thread. Yes, and the definition of “militia” is NOT personal self-defense or hunting. > [@](#): > > And as I previously pointed out, the militia is dependent on the people having arms, not the vice versa as you are trying to imply. Uh, no. The militia today is the National Guard. Don’t know if you were aware, but they don’t require you to bring your own gun. And even if you _did_ have to, then you only have the right to that gun to the extent that you are participating in a militia. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/190 "2004-02-17T20:02:20Z")
Razor, the federal government passing a law that you claim is _ex post facto_ has absolutely no bearing on any argument that I have made in this thread. Please, please, try to focus. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/191 "2004-02-17T21:19:48Z")
Blow, what right is mentioned in the following: > [@](#): > > A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Is it the right of the states to form militias? Hell no, it ain’t. Despite how bad you want it to be, that right ain’t mentioned. Now, what right is mentioned in the Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/192 "2004-02-17T21:41:04Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > The militia today is the National Guard. No, it isn’t. The National Guard today is part of the standing army. A standing army was something that the Founding Fathers had deep suspicions of and warned against. > [@](#): > > Don’t know if you were aware, but they don’t require you to bring your own gun. And even if you _did_ have to, then you only have the right to that gun to the extent that you are participating in a militia. That sounds an awful lot like an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/193 "2004-02-17T21:54:54Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > Blow, what right is mentioned in the following:Is it the right of the states to form militias? Hell no, it ain’t. Despite how bad you want it to be, that right ain’t mentioned. > > Now, what right is mentioned in the Amendment? The right to form armed state militias. Is English your first language? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/194 "2004-02-17T22:08:26Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > No, it isn’t. The National Guard today is part of the standing army. A standing army was something that the Founding Fathers had deep suspicions of and warned against. No, they were suspicious of the newly formed _U.S._ Army. They wanted the _states_ to have militias. The 2nd Amendment isn’t about being able to shoot your neighbor, it’s about state powers vs. federal powers. > [@](#): > > That sounds an awful lot like an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, we’re all aware that you feel you have an absolute right to own a gun for personal self-defense. I disagree. How much longer do you want to just go back-and-forth on that? ---
**Author:** ![FuzzyWuzzy06](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/977dab/32.png) [@FuzzyWuzzy06](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FuzzyWuzzy06)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/195 "2004-02-17T23:42:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes, we’re all aware that you feel you have an absolute right to own a gun for personal self-defense. I disagree. How much longer do you want to just go back-and-forth on that? Even if you think the Second Amendment only gives the right for the state to have a well organized militia, this should have no bearing on your personnal right to have a weapon. The Constitution does not give the people rights. The Constitution gives the government certain powers… certain LIMITED powers. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the people GIVE the government power to take their weapons away. In fact the 10th Amendment says that the people RESERVE all rights not enumerated by the constitution. We allow the government to create a Navy and an Army, etc… its not the government that allows us to have guns. That is a right that is reserved by the people, because it is not given away in the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/196 "2004-02-18T00:32:46Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > The militia today is the National Guard. I know you missed my question earlier because you are having so much fun playing with the razor. But did you ever give a good cite that this idea jives with the ideas expressed by the Founding Fathers? That is it seems to me that the concept that the militia was not limited to some state sanctioned organization seems to have quite a bit of teeth. While it is true that we use the National Guard for many of the things that the colonies used militias for, it does not necessarily follow that the National Guard has subsumed every and all aspects of the mening of the word militia. Specifically, that they should be the only ones with a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. This is a small stretch, but look at it this way. You can’t (or at least shouldn’t) be able to define away a right by substituting new words for old concepts. Consider the objections raised about the “combatants” held in cuba. Just because we don’t call them defendants, or citizens, they may not be afforded _any_ of the rights normally assigned to criminals. There is something disturbing about this. In the same way there is something disturbing about your contention that the National Guard is all the militia that the constitution addresses. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/197 "2004-02-18T07:15:35Z")
> [@FuzzyWuzzy06](#): > > Even if you think the Second Amendment only gives the right for the state to have a well organized militia, this should have no bearing on your personnal right to have a weapon. > > The Constitution does not give the people rights. The Constitution gives the government certain powers… certain LIMITED powers. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the people GIVE the government power to take their weapons away. O.K., do you have a right to murder? Do you have a right to rape? Do you have a right to steal? Do you have a right to run red lights whenever you feel like it? Do you have a right to fix yourself a bald eagle sandwich with spotted owl sauce? Why not? Does the Bill of Rights _specifically_ say you can’t do those things? No, it doesn’t. You can’t do those things because there are LAWS passed by the LEGISLATURE against doing those things. Legislatures can pass laws, and they do not have to have your personal permission to enforce those laws. We elect our legislatures and they act as our representatives. If they pass a law saying you can’t do x, y, and z, then you can’t do x, y, and z. If x, y, and z are constitutionally-protected, the law will be struck down by the courts. If not, then you’re SOL, and you can whine all you want about your God-given rights, but legally you don’t have a leg to stand on. > [@](#): > > In fact the 10th Amendment says that the people RESERVE all rights not enumerated by the constitution. No, that’s NOT what it says; it says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the **states respectively** , or to the people.” It says the states OR the people. It’s amazing to me how you gun enthusiasts seem to have no compunction about just leaving out key words when you quote the Bill of Rights. You are apparently asserting that the 10th Amendment somehow _bars_ states from passing gun regulations. I can assure you it does no such thing. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/198 "2004-02-18T07:38:58Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I know you missed my question earlier because you are having so much fun playing with the razor. Ha, ha - yeah, you shouldn’t play with razors.😃 > [@](#): > > But did you ever give a good cite that this idea jives with the ideas expressed by the Founding Fathers? That is it seems to me that the concept that the militia was not limited to some state sanctioned organization seems to have quite a bit of teeth. While it is true that we use the National Guard for many of the things that the colonies used militias for, it does not necessarily follow that the National Guard has subsumed every and all aspects of the mening of the word militia. Specifically, that they should be the only ones with a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. > > This is a small stretch, but look at it this way. You can’t (or at least shouldn’t) be able to define away a right by substituting new words for old concepts. Consider the objections raised about the “combatants” held in cuba. Just because we don’t call them defendants, or citizens, they may not be afforded _any_ of the rights normally assigned to criminals. There is something disturbing about this. In the same way there is something disturbing about your contention that the National Guard is all the militia that the constitution addresses. That’s a really good point, and no I _don’t_ think the National Guard is equivalent to the militias of colonial times. But you took my quote out of context. Razor said “the militia is dependent on the people having arms”, and I brought up the National Guard only to point out the untruthfullness of that statement. The militia is NOT dependent on people providing their own guns. In fact, the militias that existed in colonial times are no more, so really, the 2nd Amendment is an artifact of a time long since passed, and really shouldn’t be given any more thought than the 3rd Amendment, which nobody even talks about anymore. In theory, if we still had state militias that were b.y.o.g. (bring your own gun), the 2nd Amendment might be important. But that’s not the case. People with guns today are not using them to fight oppression, but rather to threaten and murder each other. So the question is, if we agree that we’re talking about a kind of militia that doesn’t exist anymore, why is it justified to just substitute “personal self-defense” for militia, when that’s not what they were talking about? You object to “substituting new words for old concepts”, yet that’s precisely what you are doing. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/199 "2004-02-18T15:43:54Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > …People with guns today are not using them to fight oppression, but rather to threaten and murder each other… Millions of people in the U.S. have guns. Very few of them are using them to “threaten and murder” others. Indeed, it is illegal to “threaten and murder” others except in limited circumstances, such as legitimate self-defense. And nobody that I’m aware of, not even the NRA, is defending the right of felons to possess firearms. As for myself, I own guns. I have never threatened anyone in my life, and certainly not with a firearm. It goes without saying that I have never murdered anybody. I own guns because I feel that it is my right as a citizen to be able to defend myself and my family without being dependent on the police or the government. I have never been threatened or been in fear for my life, but should the situation ever arise, I will not be told by my government that I have no right to protect myself or my family. As far as “fight[ing] oppression” goes, simply because people with guns are not currently using them for this purpose does not mean that the need will never arise. I have several fire extinguishers, too, which have never been used. Does this mean I should get rid of them? ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437/200 "2004-02-18T16:33:05Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Ha, ha - yeah, you shouldn’t play with razors.😃 That’s right, ‘cause if ya do, there’s a good chance that you wind up gettin’ cut. > [@](#): > > and no I _don’t_ think the National Guard is equivalent to the militias of colonial times. But you took my quote out of context. Razor said “the militia is dependent on the people having arms”, and I brought up the National Guard only to point out the untruthfullness of that statement. Horseshit, you said that the National Guard is the militia to give substance to an outright lie. Equally egregious is your refusal to admit that the only right mentioned in the Second Amendment is the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”. The Amendment further states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To then claim that the right to bear arms only exists when in service of a militia, is an admission of an outright infringement of said right. Just what the Amendment expressly forbids. > [@](#): > > In fact, the militias that existed in colonial times are no more, so really, the 2nd Amendment is an artifact of a time long since passed, and really shouldn’t be given any more thought than the 3rd Amendment, which nobody even talks about anymore. Can you not figure out why people are not talking about the Third Amendment? I’d say that it’s because the government is not quartering troops in people’s private homes, but if there were a political faction that was working to do that for the obscure reason that it would be for “the greater good”, then there would be a lot of talk about it, just as there is a lot of talk about the Second Amendment when the faction that wants to remove the right to keep and bear arms from the people, promotes legislation to do just that. > [@](#): > > In theory, if we still had state militias that were b.y.o.g. (bring your own gun), the 2nd Amendment might be important. But that’s not the case. People with guns today are not using them to fight oppression, but rather to threaten and murder each other. Another damnable lie. Firearms are used many more times annually to protect lives and property, than to threaten and murder. > [@](#): > > So the question is, if we agree that we’re talking about a kind of militia that doesn’t exist anymore, why is it justified to just substitute “personal self-defense” for militia, when that’s not what they were talking about? You object to “substituting new words for old concepts”, yet that’s precisely what you are doing. No one is substituting “personal self-defense” for militia. The right to self-defense is an unalienable right. That’s one of those rights that go along with the right to “Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toss-up-your-reasons-not-to-allow-concealed-carry-and-i-ll-heh-shoot-them-down/227437.md?page=11)