Gun Control & 2nd Amendment

Bullshit. Quote me saying that all three presidents believed that another revolution would be necessary in the future of the U.S. You are full of shit. You've tried to manipulate the conversation at every turn instead of actually reading what I wrote. All YOU have done is try and pigeonhole me in to saying something I never intended. I never fucking said anything like that and you know it. You're just trying to manipulate the conversation by at first being vague and then getting more detailed as you go to cover up the fact that you know you were vague to begin, which obviously makes it is easy to misconstrue."Do you think Adams and Washington would support that view." Naturally since we are discussing revolutions, they would support based on historical precedence. But you assumed I would automatically know that you meant "regular revolutions" or "20-year revolutions," when you never made that clear at all!!!You've tried to get me to say that I want to overthrow the government and pigeonhole me in to saying something I never said and/or never intended.Too much time has been spent on explaining this to you. So, fuck it. I'm not gonna jump through your hoops.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I don't know why probably because it is more complex than any one reason. I couldn't tell you why Russia, Mexico, or Colombia are extraordinarily higher than the US either. There are many cultural factors at play, but I completely agree that finding the root cause is very important. Yes, but as you can see some American's don't want that personal freedom. From your perspective, it would be easy to think of not having the right because many didn't have it all. Others in the UK are not happy about it. But for many, and possibly most, we don't know what it is like not to have access to arms. It would be next to impossible to go without it, especially when it is afforded as a Constitutional right.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I can't imagine living in a world where you are disallowed access to guns.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

What other right would it include, but for protection? Whenever you fire at somebody, deadly force is implied whether you meant to incapacitate or not. That's how the police view it and I'm pretty sure that's how you'd view it too being shot at. If you shoot at someone unlawfully, more than likely you will be charged with attempted murder or murder. Everyone that needs to tell everyone they're not anti-gun solicits that information all their own because of the perception they themselves projected. Invariably they give a thousand and one reasons why guns need to go and find no compelling reasons to own a gun, but insert that small claim that is often backed up by some personal anecdote that means nothing to the rest of the debaters.I'm not saying that you're doing that, but your concession got me thinking about how anti-gun people claim not to be anti-gun. It's a lot like the homophobic crowd. "I don't hate gay people," right after giving a hundred and one reasons they despise gay people. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

quote:

---

:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

---

I notice you conveniently left out the most important section. Give some specific examples of what stricter gun laws you'd like to see. It's "vigilantism" to protect yourself in your own home?!?!Okay, you say you are not anti-gun, but you see protecting yourself in a home invasion as "vigilantism."If you are not anti-gun, what reason do you want to allow for weapons if not for self-defense? It seems odd to me that you have no contention with shooting defenseless squirrels off your porch, but appear indignant by the notion of actually defending yourself against a murderer, rapist, or thief. I can only know what you share. If you don't want to be misunderstood then my suggestion is that you don't misrepresent yourself. Isn't that the kettle calling the pot black. Let's see Theo, you fabricated everything about an earlier discussion. I tried to clear the air and be very courteous to you. You chose instead to have acted like a menstruating teenager that day and clearly was picking a fight with me. Don't poke people if you don't want them to poke back.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Honestly, RAZD, what would you do, offer them some tea and ask why they just broke in to your house? I wonder if you'd be so glib about it with small children in the house.You are right, we don't know the reason the intruder is in the house, which is precisely why one should be [and is] afforded the right to be armed. Police carry firearms in the event they will need them. Well, it is the same for the citizen. They are there in the event they are needed. That is the beauty of freedom. One of your freedoms is to opt not to partake in another freedom. Perhaps you've never seen one of their programs, but it is well-sourced. Nice character assassination because they're magicians, as if magicians couldn't possibly be cerebral. You are right that the intent of the phrasing, based on numerous historical documents, was to have an army of citizens who, if they wanted to, trained as an army. The closest thing today that models the intent of the Framers is Switzerland. Average and ordinary citizens carrying guns. The only difference is they have conscription laws. You have to fight for Switzerland because of its small size. Not so, in the colonies.However, this does NOT take away from the basic premise that the common citizen was never intended to not be armed. There were a few dissenters, but most agreed and believed it was a right for the average citizen to be armed.How do we know? "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Tenche Coxe; Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions. -- Samuel Adams, letter written to John Adams Oct 04, 1790 "Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence." -- John Adams; Legal Papers of John Adams (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1965), 3:248. "The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for the common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison; Federalist Papers #46 "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;... that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." -- Thomas Jefferson; Letter to Major John Cartwright (June 5 1824) "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." -- Melancton Smith, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788.There were a minority who saw it as you do, however. "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -- Alexander Hamilton; Federalist Paper #34, January 5, 1788Even that being the case, the overwhelming trend is in favor of average citizens having the right to bear arms for personal defense. You are drawing false parallels. Nobody but you said that laws were to be enforced by people not in the militia. The issue is whether or not the intent was to preserve the right of individual's to bear arms for individual protection. John Adams goes out of his way to express that the militia, being properly trained, should enforce laws and order, but that even those not in the militia are entitled to defense.In other words, I'm not asking for armed people to run around with guns enforcing their own laws. "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

So is Onifre. Are you saying that comedians or entertainers couldn't possibly be informed? It doesn't mean "just killin people," and never has. That's one of your fabrications and assumptions. It means having the ability to defend oneself.

quote:

---

Okay, you say you are not anti-gun, but you see protecting yourself in a home invasion as "vigilantism."

---

Can you elaborate on why that is vigilantism? What an idiotic statement. If I think it is a right to be armed in the event of something, it must mean that I "fantasize about it." More fabrications and distortions. Look, Theo, if you are content in being complicit with murderers and rapists, have your fill. But there is no need to demonize people who protect themselves against violent offenders.Would resisting violent people with violence be taking the law in to your hands? You should you just acquiesce? Would you physically resisting the assaulter be assault or defense? If it is not, then what difference is there with arms other than it even the playing field? I have, numerous times. I have outlined each objection. You either don't respond to it or just keep repeating it.This is the last time I am going to ask you.You are in favor of "stricter" gun laws. Please provide some proposals for stricter gun laws. Don't let your menstruation get in the way of a good debate. Get some super-absorbent pads (with wings), pop a few Midol, and get back out there.You want stricter gun laws, then make some proposals. The gun control gang rarely make any real suggestions. The majority of the suggestions are already in place, rendering the argument for stricter gun control moot. And for most, "gun control" is code for "lets get rid of guns."Enough with the hysterical shrill of the echo chamber. Don't merely use platitudes, give me some substantive. Explain what you want.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Are you asking me what the longest shot I've ever made, was? If necessary, yes. In the face of imminent danger against myself or others. So if I haven't had to kill anyone it makes me a pussy? Why do you keep making it about killing people, when the argument is about defense? It's the hormones. Don't worry, it's natural.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Yes, I agree with states making provisions or reasonable limitations, because the Framers could not have contemplated something as technologically advanced as fully automatic weaponry.One has to interpret the intent and spirit and then reasonably determine what someone needs for a reasonable amount of defense versus a justifications to have better weaponry.I agree with gun control, insofar as they are reasonable limitations. I just often don't agree with the people that advocate gun control, when often it is code for the abolition of guns.That is why I think it is important to define terms and important in outlining the specific means of control.Any suggestions you have are welcomed.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

No, it says that ordinary citizens shouldn't be enforcing laws and that the only reason they should keep and bear arms is for protection. Sounds a whole lot like the way we live now, doesn't it? Let's review it."And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." -- Samuel AdamsAs you can see he sets up the pretense, which is that the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe, and then he proceeds with his laundry list of offenses. No, it doesn't since it literally has nothing do with it. And I didn't say we need to overthrow the government, I said in the event we ever need to, arms are necessary.The reason why: "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Tench Coxe Where did I or the author of the quote mention limitations? No, I don't want to force people to have guns if they don't want them. I stand for this thing called "freedom," where people can choose if they want guns and choose not to have them. By all means present the dissenting opinions of the Framers. Of course I have. I've recently been reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, which is actually what prompted me to start the thread. Federal Farmer's thoughts on taxation aren't relevant to the debate. No, it is not strange at all since the Anti-Federalists were not against the Constitution, they were against hastily forming the Constitution, especially in reference to specific provisions not emphasizing individual rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights themselves specifically addressed the Anti-Federalist concerns about individual rights being officially codified in the Constitution. Well, no one really knows if he was in fact the Federal Farmer. He is suspected to be, but there are others too that some speculate might be the Federal Farmer. All the anti-federalists went under pseudonym. The second amendment is about arms. Yes, they were prominent leaders, both being delegates to the Continental Congress. Coxe was also the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. Because it proves the intent of what the Framers and the colonists wanted instead of relying only on ambiguous writing. Their private and professional writings help identify what exactly they wanted so that we don't have to play a guessing game.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Firstly, let me say thank you for adhering to the spirit of the debate. Already a lawAlready a lawAll right, and should this be federally mandated or up to the States to decide for themselves? Already a law. All states do this because this time is to conduct a proper and thorough NCIC and Interpol wants/warrants checks. Some states make the waiting period longer. The state I live in now has a 5-day waiting period, for instance. Already a law. Federal law requires that all guns made in, or imported into, the United States have a serial number to assist law enforcement in tracing a weapon. Apparently not that hard since all of these measures have already been implemented. The sole exception, I believe, is stockpiling weapons. There is no law that I know of, that says you can't own as many guns as you'd like.Generally those in favor of "strict" gun laws usually cite laws that are already in effect, and have been for decades, yet they still aren't satisfied. When asked what else should be done, they usually have no clue.So they are either ignorant of their own laws or they are just using their gun control stance as rhetoric, and their real aims (though not publicly stated) are to abolish gun ownership altogether.I just wish those that are anti-gun would come right out and say it, like RAZD. I don't agree with RAZD, but I appreciate his honesty on the matter.I, however, am for gun control too. I just sometimes disagree with those who refer to themselves as gun control advocates. If I had my way, I would seek additional legislation that prohibits those with severe mental disorders from owning firearms. This is, however, slowly coming to fruition.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Some people on this thread think more highly of your assailant than they do your family and apparently expect you to cower in a corner somewhere or invite your tormentor to have a cup of tea with you. Psh, gun-toting radical!

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

RAZD, the police are not legally even allowed to be in your home without your expressed permission, a search warrant, or under exigent circumstances. If you stumble on to an intruder in your home, you have to be able to take matters in to your own hands. Perhaps you've heard of the term "justifiable homicide."I'm not telling you that you have to shoot them on sight (which obviously is based on circumstance), I am saying something far more simple. I am saying that you are afforded the right to defend yourself with a firearm in your own home. Yeah, that is ridiculous. What makes it even more ridiculous is that you equate me with having said this or even implied it. I said that people are afforded the right to defend themselves. They are afforded the highest protection within their own home. I have supplied numerous statistics at the beginning of the thread. Feel free to go over them since no one seemed to want to touch them with a 10-foot pole. Lets look at the statistics on how many people die in car accidents, and then be horrified at the number and come to the conclusion that "cars are bad" based off of that. Because that is essentially what you are doing, only you give the car a pass but not the gun. Justifiable homicide, regardless of how frequent or infrequent doesn't diminish the right. Or you could get an alarm system, a guard dog, and a gun, depending on where you live and the prevalence of violent crime in your neighborhood. The question is why you think you can dictate for me what is an appropriate measure of defense when the Constitution affords me that right. You are conflating two different things. The reason why the militia exists, and the People the right to bear arms, is because of what happened to them fighting the British. That is 100% historically accurate. Why "citizens" i.e. militia/people had weapons is to fight other militia men and armies. Or you could move to Canada and enjoy their gun control. I'm the one standing for the Constitutional rights of this country, which is continually agreed with by the SCOTUS. It seems you are at odds with it. The National Guard operates under the US Army, specifically. That is not in keeping with the descriptions of what the militia was supposed to be. For one thing, it was argued that militias could be formed by the People. (Please refer to my numerous quotes of the Framers). The only real provision was that they be organized and trained. More specifically it has to do with Posse Comitatus, specifically while under Title 32 USC. Nonsense, what do you call "personal protection?" Let me then ask you what you are supposed to do with an intruder who has you at knife point? Define "social solutions" when it relates to home invasion, please. I hope one day we could conduct a social experiment where you come home to a mock intruder unbeknownst to you to see how you handle it.I would be most interested in seeing it. Because let's suppose you used force on them. It's the same as you playing judge, is it not?

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

That is true in most cases, except that Constitutional law prevents federal law from superseding individual or state rights. It all depends upon the circumstances involved and by what capacity the Feds are operating under. When living in California my wife had a medical marijuana card and the Feds didn't infringe her rights. It really depends on what the shops are doing. They were able to because of a Constitutional amendment, which guarantees individual rights. What is the purpose of states then, and state rights?

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

And of that, not all the "care providers" (as they are called) are operating outside the boundary of the law.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston