Gun Control & 2nd Amendment

Hi Vacate, And in both cases there would have been no armed conflict between the (a) white supremacist cult terrorist group (ruby ridge) and (b) the fanatic religious cult terrorist group (waco davidians), if they had not had weapons. In both cases the people resisting the government exercise of law and order used "innocent" people as a shield to "protect" themselves.In both cases the "innocent" people were part of the terrorist organizations, and thus their innocence is debatable.In both those cases the violence that resulted was due to the fact that the people that were in violation of laws were actively using guns to resist the government exercise of law and order. The raid on the Utah Mormons is an example of a relatively similar action of trying to bring normal law and order to a fanatic religious cult organization. No bloodshed. Equally botched government intervention.What this shows, rather than the need for armed citizens, is that when guns are both available and used, innocent people die, but when guns are not used law and order can prevail to the benefit if society, both the society at large and the cult\terrorist\fanatic groups as well. ie - availability of guns to gun happy groups made the situations worse, not better.

---

[rant]Government can be changed more effectively, and more consistently with the principles of the constitution and the declaration of independence, and the intent of the founding fathers, by the process of education of the general people, and by the evolution of government to recognize the rights of people in a fair, just and equitable manner.What the The Bill of Rights actually says:

quote:

---

Amendment II

​

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

The National Guard units run by the states fulfill this requirement, forming as they do form a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" (note meaning of "State" as a government body differs from the meaning of "states" as a subcategory here).An ad hoc group of gun happy people does not necessarily enhance the "security of a free State" so much as put guns in the hands of gun happy people in a group that can be engaged in any activity, including insurrections and terrorist operations.If find it rather difficult to imagine that the founding fathers intended that the right to bear arms would apply to terrorist groups or to cult\terrorist\fanatic organizations. Especially as the constitution speaks to how the militias are to be run, organized, equipped, trained and funded (see below), while specifically allowing for (amendment 1) "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Note also how this is interpretation of the National Guard units as the militia is in accord with amendment 5:

quote:

---

Amendment V

​

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

In this case we have the National Guard employed on behalf of the nation "in actual service in time of War" being exempted from prosecution under normal laws (say for murder) while they are engaged in war, and that they are technically not part of the national "land or naval forces" (or national air forces etc not envisaged at the time of the constitution), where I would find any attempt by any one of the cult\terrorist\fanatic "militia" organizations to claim immunity from prosecution under federal laws for engaging in acts like Ruby Ridge and the Davidian Compound to be ridiculously under supported.Notice that Amendment 5 also talks about the service of the militias to provide "service in time of ... public danger" and that this would include their use for relief during catastrophes like hurricanes and earth quakes, a service that is specifically not requested of the armed services under the constitution.This is what the U.S. Constitution says about the armed forces and the militias:

quote:

---

Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

​

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

​

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

​

To provide and maintain a Navy;

​

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

​

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

​

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

​

Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

​

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

---

Note that these are the only places where a militia is mentioned in the constitution or amendments and that the "Militia of the several States" are clearly units run by the states (ie - the National Guard), and that "organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia" are responsibilities for congress while the "Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia" are reserved for the States, so this clearly does not apply to any ad hoc organizations of gun happy citizens.Note that one of the constitutional duties of the Militia is to suppress Insurrections ... (like Ruby Ridge & Waco?) ...An ad hoc group of people with guns does not make a "well regulated Militia ... necessary to the security of a free State" as there are several other criteria that such groups must meet.Note that the armed services are, by traditional interpretations, restricted from operating within the US, even for things like emergency relief, unless specifically invited by the government of the state. Nor do the various state National Guard units operate outside their respective states without special invitation in times of emergencies.Now, I can go on about how I feel the National Guards are used, and how they should be used, and the role of police vs national authorities (ATF, FBI, etc) in dealing with social problems below the levels of "Insurrections and ... Invasions" but that would easily double the length of this post ...[/rant]Enjoy.

---

I prefer the right to bare arms, and related parts ...

Yes, Hyroglyphx, it is vigilantism, plus run-away paranoia. Because you have decided that when someone crosses your threshold uninvited that they have incurred the death penalty with no appeal.You have assumed that they intend you harm and willingly render judgment based on your most abject paranoid fear/s.I don't have a gun, I don't see any need to have a gun. Penn & Teller? Masters of the slight of hand? The argument from incredulity is all they have.You cannot escape the fact that "the right to bear arms" is indeed a subjugate phrase to the formation of a well organized militia - an organization that is mentioned elsewhere in the constitution, where the operation is left to the individual states, one of the places of division of duties between the federal government and the states.Interestingly, one of the duties of the state run militias is the suppression of insurrections, and curiously "the people" are not mentioned as having any duty in this regard at all ...

quote:

---

Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

​

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

​

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

​

To provide and maintain a Navy;

​

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

​

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

​

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

---

Curiously, a bunch of people running around waving guns does not make a militia, nor a court of law, nor does it enforce the constitution or any other laws, but it does make a vigilante mob.Interestingly, "the people" are not called upon to enforce the laws of the nation, while the militia is -- spelled out in no uncertain terms: "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union" -- and thus, as it is not a duty of the people, but one of the militia, then when you take on this task you are engaging in vigilante justice, not law and order.Fascinatingly, the constitution is very explicit about training and provisioning of the militias and their use to enforce law and order when necessary, rather than a federal agency.This is the division of power to prevent one oversurping the other.The founders just fought a war where it became very clear that only by forming into a well organized militia would they be able to win the war, it was not fought by individuals running around waving guns doing whatever they individually wanted to do.Let's not try to pretend that history was different than what really happened.Let's not try to pretend the constitution says something that is not in the words and is inconsistent with the rest of the document and the history.There is no provision for individual people to enforce the laws of the nation, or to take on the mantle of judge and jury.Enjoy.

---

Hi Flyer75, just as I said, paranoid ... you are "protecting" yourself from your paranoid fantasies. Yes it is up to a jury to decide, as that is how civilized people enforce justice, not at the point of a gun.It is also a duty of civic government to protect the people, not to mop the blood afterward.Curiously, statistics have shown that there are more "girls in utah" that are killed by guns every year than are killed by people that society should take care of before they kill people, and which society has been by and large capable of doing.Guns don't solve the problem of people doing these things, they just give you a personal excuse for avoiding the issue of the causes of thefts etc.The constitution does not give you the right to be executioner, and there are many cases where people have been justly convicted of wrongful death when guns have been used.You have no constitutional right to be judge and jury and executioner.That is for a court of law.Guns can be used for self-defense, however this does not entail shooting anyone that just happens to be inside your house.Two points from history that you may have heard about:(1) John Brown(2) The Civil WarNotice that in neither case were the people called upon to enforce the laws of the union nor to suppress the rebellions.In both cases state militias were used.Did John Brown's "right to bear arms" give him the right to try to impose his idea of law and justice on the nation?Did the "right to bear arms" give the south the right to rise up and succeed from the union?Does the "right to bear arms" include the rights of home-grown terrorist groups to plot against the US government and people of the US?Not in my opinion.The right to bear arms does not give you the right to blast away whenever you feel like it, rather it gives you the responsibility to use any arms in your possession in accordance with all laws and regulations and to be responsible in your actions, and not to take the law into your hands.I repeat, I do not own a gun. I also have not experienced any need to have owned a gun, nor do I have any friends that have had any such experiences.When I weigh the pros and the cons, the adverse effects and statistical results of gun ownership come out worse than the benefits and statistical results of gun ownership.I expect anyone replying to me on this thread to have read my posts on Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control, and not repeat false arguments.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added link at end

---

Please, Hyroglyphx, let's cut the hyperbole and false arguments from consequences. No it is not, for the simple reason that it is the duty of the police to seek out law breakers, and as such they are accorded extra protections not needed by the average citizen.Police are also routinely trained to recognize when the use of force is necessary and when it is not - you and the average citizen are not, and thus you are much more likely to make a mistake.Logically, if your argument were true, everyone would go around the neighborhood jogging in a bullet-proof vest, carrying SWAT rifles and looking for intruders. Ridiculous. The reason pro-gun activists use scare tactics like this (logical fallacy of argument from consequences as well), is that they do not have a leg to stand on to show that guns actually provide more protection for kids in houses (for example) than not having guns.The statistics show - conclusively in my opinion - that guns in houses leads to more deaths and permanent disabilities for kids in those houses than have been caused by outside disturbances.You want to protect your house? Get a burglar alarm system -- it has the advantage of working while you are away as well as when you are home. There are solutions to the paranoid scenarios that don't require guns ... and being "fortuitous" to be there when needed. Well you missed the part where they misdirected your attention to militia as the british army, while it was the American militia forces that drove out the well trained British military army units.For your edification here is the definition of militia:

quote:

---

militia n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

​

[Latin mīlitia, warfare, military service, from mīles, mīlit-, soldier.]
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

---

Please note and acknowledge that this definition cannot be applied to the British forces, and thus that Penn & Teller were pulling a fast one on you. Perhaps you should move to Switzerland then, and see how much you like their gun controls.You also have the National Guard units throughout the states, volunteer units run by the states for the express purposes outlined in the constitution for a well trained militia. Do I need to repeat the clauses in the constitution that actually speak to this again?There is a reason that National Guard units are called up during catastrophes (hurricanes and earthquakes, for example) but military units are not -- and it has to do with the provisions of the constitution to balance the power of the federal government against the powers of the states. So then don't misrepresent my position. But you do want to act as judge jury and executioner if you find someone in your house. The constitution does not give you that authority, nor is that a right protected by the constitution.If there are social reasons that cause people to feel they need to invade the houses of others, then the problem will be solved by social solutions, not by people with guns killing intruders - that only treats the symptoms, not the cause/s. Treat the cause/s and nobody would need guns for defense. Curiously, that is what civilization is about - making a society that benefits the citizens in as equitable a manner as possible.I choose to choose civilization over paranoid anarchy when it comes to law enforcement.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...

---

Please Hyroglyphx, perhaps when you get back you can stick to the issues. Maybe one at a time ... No, I am deconflating two different things - a militia and the British army, which were conflated by Penn and Teller in their amusing, but unfortunately (for you) inaccurate, Youtube skit.Let's review the definition of militia again: Please note and acknowledge that this definition cannot be applied to the British forces, and thus that Penn & Teller were pulling a fast one on you when they implied that it was plain citizens fighting a militia, or there is no point in discussing things with you, as you appear unwilling to acknowledge false information as false information.It's very simple: they were wrong. Admit it.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

Hi Hyroglyphx, welcome back from suspension land.Just wondering if you are going to respond to Message 110?It's pretty obvious to me that the definition/s of militia cannot apply to the British army, and thus that Penn and Teller were pulling a fast one.Care to comment?Enjoy

---

Hi AZPaul3 But these police forces are composed of citizens who have chosen to bear arms to enforce the laws of the land, one of the duties of the state militas spelled out in the constitution. Such police forces are also not military organizations, so they can't fall into the armed forces context.We can consider them to be militias, in the same way we can consider the state National Guard units to be militias.Enjoy.

---

Hi again AZPaul3, Usually requiring the approval of the government agency in charge of the unit (town mayor etc), in the same way the Governors have to approve the use of the National Guard units. Exactly, and they are left up to the states to regulate. Police units are even more local specific then the National Guard units, as they are usually run by counties and cities, not the states.Certainly if one wants the opportunity to be trained and use weapons of warfare, one can join the National Guard.If one wants to be trained and use weapons appropriate to fight crime one can join a police unit.If one wants to hunt one can acquire the proper license and permits. Where this issue becomes of concern to society is when people are not trained in the proper use of weapons endangering other citizens, or actually intend to use such weapons against other citizens.The constitution does not give people the authority to take the law into their own hands, even within their own house.Enjoy.

---

Hi Catholic Scientist and AZPaul3, And that disparity causes problems between states. Now one could argue that it is a matter of interstate trade for federal oversight, but that would be pretty weak imo.The facts of the matter show that social organizations with increased regulation have fewer problems caused by gun use than social organizations with weak or non-existing regulations. This is simply a matter of numbers, as the more people have guns the higher is the probability that one will be misused. Correct, there is no constitutional right to use a gun for a given purpose, you only have the right to bear arms, not to be judge, jury and executioner.When a gun or other weapon has been used, regardless of location, one needs to show due cause, usually involving self-protection from immanent harm.You can't just blow someone away that happens to be where you don't want them to be. And yet, curiously, it is a common argument from pro-gun people that they need to protect themselves from inappropriate gun usersNews stories are usually full (because of the vicarious thrill factor?) of stories about gang violence and guns, drive-by shootings etc.I certainly don't think such uses are appropriate for gun owners to engage in, and that lax gun restrictions are a contributing factor to their being a part of the news cycles.It seems that the pro-gun lobby would rather attack this problem with armed citizens rather than with reasonable regulations and laws. This of course will just make the problem worse, as this will be adding a vigilante gang to the mix. The reason the federal government would get involved is if there is too much disparity between state regulations. There are lots of instances where state laws have differences, but also reasons for overall comparable regulations, such as drivers licenses, particularly for truck and bus drivers.The question for federal involvement is where is the requirements of the constitution fulfilled with the need to form militias: As long as the states can form militia units, such as the National Guard units and like State Police forces, this clause of the constitution is fulfilled. Note that these definitions can be applied to the National Guard and to State and local Police units. Note that this applies to the intruder just as much as it applies to any other person. This is part of the foundation of justice that is a good model for the world."No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ... "In other words you do not have the right to take the law into your own hands.The needs for states to be able to form militias is fulfilled with current National Guard units and State Police forces, all in accordance with the other provisions of the constitution: These clauses are clearly, imho, fulfilled with the current National Guard units and State Police forces, their training, armament and organization are all in compliance with these provisions.An ad hoc organization of gun happy citizens bent on vigilante justice does not meet this criteria, and thus their "right" to bear arms in such a situation is not protected by the constitution, but Where does society draw the line between what is appropriate and what is inappropriate?It seems to me that the pro-gun lobby would be happy to have guns de-regulated to the point where the american-taliban-fundamentalist-zealots can arm themselves and train to kill abortion doctors and any other person they disagree with, simply because they have the right to bear arms.Personally I can't see the founding fathers approving of such a situation, likewise law has always taken a dim view of vigilante justice, and all of this shows that there are rational reasons for regulation of who is allowed to use what kinds of weapons when and where.Enjoy.

---

Hi Hydroglyphx,Please answer Message 110

---

Hi Catholic Scientist,I'll just be brief. Not as much regulation as is possible, but I am fully in favor of having the same degree of regulation that other democratic governments have, such as Canada and England. The benefits to society are measurable.The constitution does not restrict how much regulation can be imposed on gun ownership so long as the ability to form citizen militias is not infringed, and it charges everyone with the need to provide justice in a court of law for every citizen as much as is practical.This condition is filled by having state National Guard units and by having state and local police forces. The National Guard units also provide necessary training in the proper care, and use of weapons of war. The police units also provide the necessary training in the proper care and use of weapons used to fight crime. State and local police units are also usually authorized to deputize citizens to provide additional resources when necessary. Regardless of where you live, I see absolutely no possible rational reason for an individual to own an automatic weapon. If you want to play with weapons like this, then even more reason for regulation, however please note that you are free to join a National Guard unit where you can be trained in the proper use and care of such weapons, and allowed to use them in controlled conditions. When the time comes that such weapons are necessary to be used you can then go to your unit and be issued a weapon and the ammunition for it.Same for handguns and joining a police unit. If you think that carrying a gun makes you able to enforce the law, then join a police force and get the training to do it properly. If you think carrying a gun can serve another purpose that is to the benefit of society, then think again. Any law that restricts the availability of guns will reduce the number of guns used illegally, and it will coincidentally reduce the number of accidents due to guns: the statistics show this. One needs only compare the US with Canada to see this.Enjoy.

---

Go back and look at your video again. And avoiding the issue. There are no circumstances that justify blowing someone away just because they happen to be where you don't want them to be. Which are not comparable societies to the US, either way you cut the cheese (nor are the statistics necessarily gathered and reported in the same way).Conversely, the facts show that where guns are regulated in countries like England and Canada, that ARE comparable, that the murder rate is lower than the US AND the rate of accidental death and injury is lower.As I noted in Message 303 you need to read Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control, you are making the same logical mistakes made in that thread. Please see Message 57 on that thread.The statistics for comparing the US, England and Canada on equal footing are there: the US is unequivocally the loser.Enjoy.

---

Hi Catholic Scientist, Curiously, what the Supreme Court has said is that states have the right to regulate firearms and weapons. Interestingly, your opinion cannot alter reality. The reduction in the amount of violent assaults resulting in death AND the reduction in the number of accidents resulting in maiming or death IS a rational reason for the regulation of weapons.Certainly the regulation of weapons similar to what is in Canada and England is justified on this basis.The fact is that this can be done without violating the second amendment stipulation that militias can be formed by existing avenues, ones that also provide for proper training, thus making the users safer in the process.You want to carry or operate a gun used to fight crime, then join a police force and get trained in fighting crime.You want to carry or operate a gun used to fight a war, then join a National Guard unit and get trained in fighting a war.Enjoy.

---

Still not getting it? So they get the death penalty just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? I find it hilarious that you can't answer a simple question without bending it around, subtracting some elements or adding extra stipulations.The question is simple: is there a circumstance that justifies blowing someone away just because they happen to be where you don't want them to be? No other conditions, just being in the wrong (in your opinion) place.Now I've said there are no such circumstances. What's your answer (if you've got a straight answer)? Curiously, that right to self defense exists regardless of location, so tacking this on to the issue of blowing away someone just for being in a place you don't want to be, is just you begging the question.Interestingly, self defense doesn't depend on having a gun.Amusingly, if you invite a person in your own home and then attack them, they are legally justified to defend themselves. If someone wanders into your home and you attack them, they are justified in defending themselves. Obviously, you have failed to read the other thread. Color me surprised.There are several issues that, just perhaps coincidentally, have to do with data control. The kinds of controls typical of what is done in scientific population study experiments to remove factors that can cause false correlations. Without such controls you just have a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy in comparing numbers.There are also factors that have to do with how the various statistics are gathered and reported and the comparable accuracy of the reported statistics in different countries. These are much more likely to be done in a strictly comparable way in closely related and similar countries.Interestingly, I find that I can compare my cultural experiences with Canadian and English cultural experiences much more than I can with Mexican, Russian, Swiss and Arab cultural experiences.Certainly there is a common cultural history shared to a high degree between the US and Canada that does not exist for Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Russia. This shared common cultural history also exist to a lesser degree with England.This is born out by the first statistic reported in the post on that other thread that I link you to (for your edification): Note how this establishes that the data for the three countries is comparable.We now have controlled for cultural differences, and thus can focus on the differences between having guns generally available at will and having gun ownership restricted by regulations.The differences between the US, Canada and England are more likely to be just due to the different availability of guns than to any other factor.To make the argument even more logically and rationally sound we continue with the same source of information as the assaults to compare the following statistics: Canada is closer to the US than England in their gun regulations, and we see the results of this with Canada falling between the US and England in the statistics.With the only significant difference between the US, Canada and England being the gun regulations, the significantly higher rate of murder by firearms is unequivocally correlated with the possession of firearms in the US and the relatively lax regulations in the US compared to England and Canada.That's the reality here: lax guns laws result in more deaths by guns and a higher level of violence in assaults, even though the number of assaults is the same.It's almost like an evolutionary response.Enjoy.

---