Here’s what you fail to comprehend. If there were an Amendment to the Constitution that read,
then one could pretty much eat Bald Eagle sandwiches if he or she pleased, and the government would be prohibited from enacting legislation that would deny one that pleasure.
Why do people want to carry concealed weapons?
They like the feeling of power and control it gives them. (not a legitimate reason)
They fear someone will try to kill them or their loved ones and want to defend themselves.
The second reason may be valid for a tiny number of people for fixed amount of time (eg. serial killer on campus, psycho killer ex-spouse escapes prison) but for most people it is paranoia and deadly force is far more likely to used in an unnecessary way (road rage, misunderstanding, cheating husband/wife, perceived insults, etc.)
montery86 wrote:
Pardon me for asking, but could you link to the sites or provide cites supporting your assertion? Especially the road rage ones, that should be very interesting data. Thank you.
I know. I did not mean to mischaracterize your arguments. I only used that quote to get back into the discussion on a point I am interested in.
Right. I’m not entirely sure it ever was. I think that it was more important to have a population familiar with the operation of arms than for them to provide their own arms. In an emergency when they were called up, they might provide their own arms for a short time, but in any conflict lasting more than a few skirmishes they would have to be provided with weapons and ammunition.
In addition, however, an unarmed population would need to be trained in how to use guns from the basic principles to the skills needed to safely operate them. Including some principles of marksmanship. <aside> I saw a history channel special yesterday which suggested that the Revolutionary Army was the first to add the word “aim” to the “ready, aim, fire” command sequence. Before that armies would simply “present locks” which meant point your gun in the general direction of the opposing force.<aside>
I guess all I am suggesting is that the existence of a citizen militia is not entirely gone from our modern society. It may not have the prominence it once did. It may not be used as it once was, but it is not necessarily an artifact of colonial times with no bearing whatsoever to modern life.
Well, now lets not go too far. Nobody talks about it because nobody even thinks about violatine it. Go to congress and propose removing it and see how far you get.
I’m not sure personal self-defense is different from what the founding fathers would have envisioned as part of a citizen militia. Specifically, they would have envisioned small groups of militia resisting invasion even before a national body like the congress was aware of it. I think they would have included the concept of “self” preservation as part an parcel of this concept of “minute man” militia.
In other words, I’m not substituting self defence for militia. At least not in the way that your argument seems to substitute National Guard for militia.
One more point I’d like to make. I’m not sure that either of your arguments (yours or Razor’s) takes the entire ammendment into account. For Razor to postulate an unlimited (or virtually so) right to bear arms he has to ignore the first clause. But for you to postulate an unlimited (or virtually so) power to ban ownership of arms you have to ignore the second clause. I believe a more careful reading of the history of this issue may lead to a definition of “militia” which is compatible with both a right to own arms and the State’s power to impose safety and security limitations on those rights.
RazorsharpI suppose in the interest of fariness, I should ask you a similar question. What do you think the first clause of the ammendment means? Does the state have no power whatsoever to regulate the ownership and use of firearms?
I do not fail to comprehend that at all. In fact, that is precisely my point. If something is constitutionally protected, then the government can’t infringe.
You’re engaging in your “moving target” debating style again. In your usual style you took my post out of context, pretending that FuzzyWuzzy’s prior comment did not exist:
You are engaging in circular reasoning, along the lines of:
Blowero: “The right to own a gun for personal self-defense is not constitutionally protected.”
FuzzyWuzzy: “Even if it’s not, I have the right to own a gun as long as it’s not specifically taken away by the Constitution.”
Blowero: “If that’s true, then you would also have the right to murder, etc., since those are not specifically taken away.”
Razor: “But if all those things were Constitutionally protected, you could do them.”
Razor, that rates a big, fat, DUH! We weren’t TALKING about things that are constitutionally protected at that moment. FuzzyWuzzy was suggesting that rights exist unless they are specifically taken away by the Constitution, and I disagreed with him. Your comment just demonstrates your continuing inability to follow a simple train of thought.
Please don’t do that.
Why is it necessary for people to “practice at home”? If a state were to form a militia, could the state not provide training? Even if you had a handgun at home and were familiar with it, you’d still need to have training in operating military weapons, so I don’t see the advantage. You’ll need training either way.
I never suggested removing anything. I just don’t see that the huge importance the NRA attaches to the Second Amendment is warranted. The Electoral College is an artifact, too, but nobody’s going to get it removed.
It’s very different. You’re talking about repelling an invasion. That’s not what people are doing with their guns today. The founding fathers were thinking about England trying to get their colonies back, or the newly formed U.S. federal government going mad with power. But is that what we’re thinking about today? No. You want your guns because you’re afraid that Joe Thug is going to come into your house and steal your stuff.
Well “I think” isn’t really enough to go on, though.
Just to be clear, we already established that I do not equate the National Guard with the Colonial militias. What I wrote only “seemed” that way when you took it out of context.
But where does one draw the line? I’m pretty sure you’d agree that ordinary citizens ought not to have nuclear bombs, or bazookas, or napalm, or flame-throwers, right? Well, if states can regulate these things, then who decides what they can’t regulate? You?
I was just listing examples of guns used in an emotionally charged way. But here are a few interesting reports/studies:
On any given day, 1,100,000 Americans carry concealed weapons on them outside the workplace, and 2,100,000 in their vehicles. The rate is twice as high in the South as the rest of the nation. FBI data show that just 0.6% of violent-crime victims used a firearm in an attempt to defend themselves. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) National Crime Utilization Survey, 29% of violent-crime victims faced an offender with a gun. Of those, three percent suffered gunshot wounds. In other words, even if you are unfortunate enough to face an assailant with a firearm, there is a 97% chance that you will not be shot. BJS surveys from a number of years consistently indicate that about 85,000 crime victims use guns in an attempt to protect themselves or their property out of a total of 13,000,000 reported crimes (FBI) or 40,000,000 crimes, including unreported ones (Justice Department). Either way, guns are used in defense in less than one percent of crimes committed.
regardless of gun ownership laws. FBI crime data indicates that, in the seven states that the NRA identifies as having the most-restrictive concealed weapons laws on the books, homicides/non-negligent manslaughter declined in six of them between 1993 and 1999–Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The 11 states identified as having moderately restrictive concealed weapons laws all experienced homicide declines. For example, per 100,000 inhabitants, Missouri declined from 11.3 to 6.6; Ohio, from six to 3.5; and California and New York both experienced dramatic declines from approximately 13 to six and five, respectively. USA Today (Magazine), March, 2001, by Steven Riczo
Of firearm-related unintentional fatalities, 71% involve handguns.
Source: Accidental Shootings: Many Deaths and Injuries Caused by Firearms Could be Prevented. GAO Report. 1991.
Having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely to be the victim of a domestic homicide.
Source: Bailey, J. Risk factors for violence death of women in the home. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1997; 157(7): 777-782.
There’s also the suicide angle:
Study: Handgun Ownership Raises Risk of Suicide
Thanks for the prompt reply monterey86 (I spelled it right this time). Unfortunately your link doesn’t work for me. I understand your premise, however, your arguement (road rage, et al) is not supported by your cites. I’ll delve into some of your stat’s later, I’m off to the range!
I made no argument as to the percentage of gun owners who threaten and/or murder. Even fewer of them are being used to repel armed invasions threatening the liberty of the state. In fact, I’d say ZERO of them are being used for that purpose.
A.) I made no claim as to whether these things were done legally or illegally, and B.) the fact that a given activity is illegal does not mean people don’t do it.
That’s sort of a “no true Scotsman” argument. The NRA says that only felons are committing the crimes, not the law-abiding gun owners. But of course, as soon as a gun owner commits a felony, then he’s a felon, and not one of the “law-abiding” gun-owners. Rather convenient, that. Besides which, the NRA consistenty lobbies for fewer and fewer restrictions on gun ownership, and never supports any kind of restriction on gun ownership. In addition, they consistently support relaxing the standards for background checks. So in fact, they support measures that would result in more felons getting guns.
And that’s exactly my point. Why do you want the gun? So you can “protect yourself or your family”. How would you do that? If the situation arose, you would use the gun to threaten someone who you thought posed a hazard to yourself or your family, correct? What’s more, you want to do so without “being dependent on the police or the government”. Quite simply, you’re saying you wish to take the law into your own hands. I don’t think that’s what the Second Amendment is addressing.
So in fact, you have just proven my point. You don’t want a gun to fight oppression, you want it in order to intimidate others, or at least have the potential to do so.
You just told us why you have a gun, and you didn’t mention fighting oppression at all. I think that’s just a false justification that people use so they can claim to be invoking the Second Amendment.
Dude, you ain’t cutting shit.
In your dreams. I said it because you appear to suffer from the delusion that people today are providing their own weapons when they join up. But people don’t provide their own weapons. That’s not a lie. The fact that you think it’s a lie shows that you are woefully ignorant.
Wow, you’re really gonna go with that theory? Just take whatever words out of the sentence you like and read them without context? O.K., here’s my interpretation of the 4th Amendment:
Huh? Think about how one would “protect lives and property” with a gun. Does the gun send out magical rays that make criminals say “Gee, guess I’ll stop taking lives and property”? Nope - you would use the gun to threaten the criminal, correct?
No, it’s not.
By the way, has anyone else noticed the irony here? Those who support gun ownership are for the most part those on the right end of the political spectrum, usually Republicans. They justify their position as being necessary to defend liberty. Yet it’s the same people who fail to oppose the erosion of those liberties that they claim to defend. Republicans invariably favor more FEDERAL MILITARY SPENDING, in fact supporting the very “standing army” that is supposedly the bane of existence. They favor the Patriot Act, which gives the Federal government more power to infringe on our liberties. Democrats, who tend to favor gun control, also oppose laws that infringe on due process, imprisonment without trial, and unreasonable search and seizure. But the current Republican administration has taken measures to curtail these things, and received overwhelming support from Republican voters. Democrats tend to favor unlimited free speech, while Republicans want to control the content of media. The same right-wingers who claim they need guns to “defend liberty”, for the most part actually have little interest in liberty.
I didn’t claim they did support it, only that they were interesting. But if you want road-rage & guns (what a great combo), here’s another one:
When it comes to the weapons used during outbursts of “road rage,” our study identified drivers’ vehicles and firearms as the principal weapons of choice. In 35 percent of the 10,037 incidents reviewed for our study, a vehicle was used as a weapon. In 37 percent a firearm was used. This high rate of use of firearms is especially alarming given the proliferation of “concealed carry” gun permit laws in this country. A motorist may have a legal handgun near at hand, never intending to use it for anything except self-defense. Yet a provoking incident occurs, and there the gun is, available for use – and, in a moment of madness, it gets used.
Research on the Problem of Violent Aggressive Driving
David K. Willis
President and Chief Executive Officer of
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
I have noticed the irony. But would point out that it runs both ways with Democrats not supporting the civil liberty of being armed. Not that either party is much on liberty. 
monterey86 wrote:
Emphasis mine. So does this study support your contention that “road rage” incidents with a firearm are committed by licensed CCW holders? And BTW, how come Japan has as many or more suicides per capita compared to the US, and guns are banned period? What does this have to do with CCW holders in the US?
blowero wrote:
Although building up your forearms with that big-ass brush you’re swinging, you may want to see what other organizations (that vote Republican) have to say about the Patriot Act (just a couple I googled).
[ul]
[li]Gunowners.com[/li][Quoted by the ACLU?]
(http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12634&c=206)[/ul]
Sorry, not true. The NRA was key in the passage of the Brady Bill, calling specifically for the NCIS vice a 5-day waiting period, and they have been a major player in the Project Exile initiative. And to go back to one of my earlier posts, the NRA is all for crime control when it involves guns, however, they will not support restrictions of gun ownership when it cannot be shown that this or that particular law will reduce criminal use of a firearm. I think you need to spend some more time on the NRA’s web page.
No, not correct, no way. I don’t want to answer for the other poster, but I have to say something about this, as I have a CC permit.
You never use a firearm to threaten or intimidate someone. You use it to eliminate a threat. If you or someone else is at an immediate risk of death or severe bodily harm, you pull your weapon and fire until the threat is eliminated. Don’t pull that gun unless your next action is to pull the trigger.
No, you are quite simply doing what you have to do to save your life, or someone elses. What the heck are you supposed to do, stand there and get beaten, robbed, stabbed, or murdered and hope the cops call an ambulance when they get there? By using a firearm to eliminate a threat, you aren’t taking the law into your own hands, you are saving your own ass. You are not judging your attacker and then executing them
No one has proven your point, not even you. You just put your own ignorant words in his mouth and then blamed him for it.
I’m sorry, do what?
?Sure, but the question is how much and from what starting point. Shooting is a skill. Like most skills it takes training and practice to become proficient in it. similarly a raw beginner who has never seen a gun before will require more training (on average) than someone who has handled guns all his life. Whether or not either of them has ever seen the guns used by the military.
That’s because you have decided on how may guns should be allowed and don’t mind that forces inside washington are acting to bring about your agenda. The NRA, on the other hand is quite worried that their agenda (which they view as protected by the amendment in question) is begin thwarted. So, they attach a large importance to the amendment. As someone else suggested, if some group or other tried to suggest billeting troops in private homes we would all start talking about the 3rd amendment and why it was put there, and the dangers of ignoring it. Perhaps more so than we do the second.
No, not really. I’m talking about using force to defend oneself and the country against others who are using force against it. The principle is exactly the same. Only the numbers of people involved are different.
Right. Which is why I asked if you had any good cites indicating that the founding fathers saw the militia as something other than every able bodied citizen. It seems to me that the collective rights argument relies to some degree on this premise. If not in the minds of the founding fathers, at least in the minds of the current “anti gun” lobbiests.
Fair enough. But you still have not defined, then, what the militia is. What is the difference, IOW, between the militia and the National Guard?
Well, if I have the deciding vote in the supreme court, then yes me. 
Seriously, though, the legislative process is quite capable of drawing these lines. I think we have pretty good lines right now. It does not seem to me that CCW moves the line very far in either direction.
That really makes no sense blowero. What use if the right to life if you have no right to defend your life? It makes no sense.
Here in Canada our Charter of Rights reads:
which makes the issue somewhat clearer. But still, doesn’t the establishment of a right give you some degree to defend that right within the law? Otherwise what use is it if it can be taken away on a whim with the possessor of the right having no recourse to its defense?
Note, that I state “within the law”. I’m certainly not saying that if somebody were to try to deprive somebody of my freedom of religion that anybody should respond violently, legal action could and should be sought. However, in the case of depriving somebody of their immediate loss of life what would you recommend? Note, that in most states the law allows for some means of violent self defense.
Oh yes, I most certainly have cut “shit”. I’ve put you in check to the point that you are basically shuttin’ your eyes, covering your ears, and stompin’ your feet like a child who has just been told that Santa is not real. That is what you are doing in your child-like refusal to admit that “the right to keep and bear arms” is the only “right” mentioned in the Amendment.
Join what? Not the militia. See, you are still attempting to maintain that bit of nonsense you spouted about the National Guard being the militia.
Pssst… Blow, other people can see these words that you write, of course it’s already been pointed out to you that others recognize your shallow tactic of putting your words in other people’s mouths to give excuse to your lies.
[quote]
Wow, you’re really gonna go with that theory? Just take whatever words out of the sentence you like and read them without context? O.K., here’s my interpretation of the 4th Amendment:
Yes, I can see how you interpret the Amendment as such, seeing that you interpret the Second Amendment as:
yourself.
Now you have to resort to semantics in your desperate struggle for creedence. See, you were using threaten and murder in the context of a gun owner acting in an irresponsible manner, when threatening a criminal bent on doing you harm is a justifiable use of a firearm.
Okay, rather than just making one of your baseless proclaimations, explain why “self-defense” not an unalienable right?
Oh yes, I most certainly have cut “shit”. I’ve put you in check to the point that you are basically shuttin’ your eyes, covering your ears, and stompin’ your feet like a child who has just been told that Santa is not real. That is what you are doing in your child-like refusal to admit that “the right to keep and bear arms” is the only “right” mentioned in the Amendment.
Join what? Not the militia. See, you are still attempting to maintain that bit of nonsense you spouted about the National Guard being the militia.
Pssst… Blow, other people can see these words that you write, of course it’s already been pointed out to you that others recognize your shallow tactic of putting your words in other people’s mouths to give excuse to your lies.
[quote]
Wow, you’re really gonna go with that theory? Just take whatever words out of the sentence you like and read them without context? O.K., here’s my interpretation of the 4th Amendment:
Yes, I can see how you interpret the Amendment as such, seeing that you interpret the Second Amendment as:
yourself.
Now you have to resort to semantics in your desperate struggle for creedence. See, you were using threaten and murder in the context of a gun owner acting in an irresponsible manner, when threatening a criminal bent on doing you harm is a justifiable use of a firearm.
Okay, rather than just making one of your baseless proclaimations, explain why “self-defense” is not an unalienable right?