Summations Only

Hey this has already been answered more than once here, why are you harping on it again?I put up the video "Innocents Betrayed" way back there somewhere, which is all about how government confiscation of citizens' weapons preceded the murders of 170,000,000 in the twentieth century, starting with the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians and going on up through the Soviet starvation of the Ukrainians, a series of Chinese atrocities, the Nazi Holocaust, the Croatian slaughter and Rwanda. Also covers the fact that slaves in America were not permitted to own guns. Registration and Licensing of firearms is also discussed as contributing to the vulnerability of the people.You could also go read that article at the bottom of Message 57 which gives the history that led up to the Second Amendment, what happened when kings disallowed their subjects to have weapons and what happened when they not only allowed but even required an armed citizenry.Isn't it just common sense that governments can get power-mad and willing to enforce their own agenda on those who disagree with them, an observation made over and over by the founders I quoted in Message 57, and since governments are in a position to accumulate power, if the people have none we become sitting ducks for whatever they want to force upon us? Isn't that just common sense?As for the applicability to the US, I don't think you or maybe anyone at this point is in a position to judge what could happen here. You are on the side of those who would be the oppressors at this point of course so your perspective isn't going to be taken too seriously by those who are likely to be the targets.Here's that video again, "Innocents Betrayed":
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't watch propaganda.If you provide real info I probably won't respond anyway after the vile things and lies you post on your blog about people here.So Chuck you Farley.

I don't know why people appeal to the founders but overlook the actual law that they wrote."A well-regulated militia..."I think registration falls under both categories..."well-regulated" and any formation worthy of being accounted for as a "militia would both require some sort of registration for accounting and accountibility purposes.

GOOD GRIEF! READ WHAT THE FOUNDERS ACTUALLY SAID ABOUT WHAT A MILITIA IS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! I know it takes an effort to read but go read my Message 57. YOU do not know what they meant by a militia, but THEY KNEW."Well regulated" had more to do with training and leadership, and the citizen gun owners were to be called out to training sessions from time to time. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH REGISTERING WHO OWNS GUNS. Stop making up stuff.

Sure call the facts propaganda and you can dispense with anybody's opinion you don't happen to like. That film is full of facts facts facts. Call John Lott some name, I forget what you called him, that's how you deal with facts that are against you. The propaganda is all on YOUR side and boy do you sling it.Wow and you even screamed for me to come and answer your stupid challenge about confiscation, so I do and this is how you deal with it?Ha ha, you didn't like being referred to as an Orc at my blog apparently? But it fits you so WELL.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How about we call him a liar? Because, as Rahvin has demonstrated, that's what he is. Lott lies, fluently and consistently, about easily checkable facts. This is a reason not to trust him.

About all I can see from your post is that, speaking of whom to trust, you are trusting in the claims made by Lott's opponents about his work. The article at Wikipedia about him makes clear that there is controversy about his work but it's mostly of the usual academic type, revolving around such questions as how to interpret statistics. But it needs to be kept in mind also that this topic can't ever be merely academic, it's a hot button political issue and there's no more reason to trust those on your side of this than you trust mine.The article reports that he had a defamation suit against a couple of his critics and won part of it but lost part because it was ruled not to be defamation-- which probably means it was an academic opinion. You can't make a liar of someone for a dispute over differing views of statistics.In the quote you give, Lott claims to have given facts and figures to back up his claim about gun-free zones but obviously you prefer a different set of facts and figures. He said gun free zones make shootings 'more likely" whereas you answer with a statistic that claims something different, that most recent shootings have occurred where guns are allowed, which is really not an answer to his claim, let alone sufficient to make the man a "liar."You can't compare a few RECENT shootings to his general claim that gun-free zones make shootings "more likely" which he says he backed up with facts, which are not available in your post. Also he says that citizens with guns often STOP these shootings but you and your preferred authorities choose to ignore that. That's an important part of the argument for guns and Lott uses that argument according to Wikipedia. It completely changes how we should look at the statistics that focus only on very specific outcomes, such as "murders" or even "shootings" since neither may occur where guns have been used to prevent them.Similarly you try to hang him on judging the shootings in Germany as "worse" than those in America, ranking them as second and third worst and so on and you point to numbers killed as if that proves he's lying, but I don't know if that's what he based his judgment on. That is one of those things you have to understand in context. I can't just accept some critic's off the cuff way of construing it.And please keep in mind this stuff is politically loaded, there's reason for strong prejudice on both sides.I don't know if your accusation that he referred to his own book is fair or not. If he did the question would be whether he gave a citation in his book or not because using one's own work as a reference is not out of bounds in itself. I run across that a lot where the primary source is a very old book that's out of print but was quoted by the author extensively somewhere else. That's probably not comparable to the situation here, I'm just saying it because it's not in itself wrong.As for his creating a fictional person to praise his work that's dumb of him and he admitted that much as quoted at Wikipedia, but it doesn't prove that his statistics or his interpretation of them are wrong.The fact remains: If 78% of counties in America with the highest gun ownership also had no gun crimes in any given year while 3% of the counties where gun ownership is lowest had the highest rate of gun crimes, that ought to blow a hole in this argument that doesn't bother with such distinctions but equates gun prevalence and gun murders -- to an honest objective person anyway. You ought to agree with this as stated.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And, have you looked at what the founders said??? Do you realize that the reasons and intent of the Founders when it comes to the second amendment is obsolete , because of they way both technology and society has changed over the last few centuries??Since that is the case, what the founders said originally, and what their intentions are mean very little in our modern setting. It is was OUR social needs that mean much more than what the founders concepts were.There is 150 years of reinterpreting what a militia is, and what 'arms' are, and what 'well regulated' means.The Militia act of 1903 clarified what is meant by Militia.. because our needs changed. "Well regulated" i am sure has changed too.That was then, this is now.. Do get out of the 18th century someday.

"Well-regulated" has to do with the need for training and leadership?And, citizen gun-owners should be expected to be called out for training from time to time?So, my question becomes, how does the government know who it is supposed to call out from time to time for training without gun registration? Without the registration, some gun owners could simply refuse to participate in the training. This would mean that these gun owners would no longer fall in the category of a "well regulated" militia as you have put it.Therefore, registration would simply be an aid for the government to call gun owners out to train on a regular basis. This is after all, as you stated, the purpose of the term, "A well regulated militia." Without registration of firearms, there can be no training of the militia because no one is aware of who is in the militia.

Not until you provide that data.Until then it is bullshit you got from a known liar.

Yes, there are plenty of ways to twist the stats. All cites of naked stats are going to create questions of twising.If I were investigating the data, one point I'd want to checked is the make up and size of the counties making up 78%. Counties vary in size and demographics, and I'd want those things controlled for in a study because they also affect whether the counties have any crime at all, let alone gun crime. I'd also want to have a look at the gun laws and crime types in those states because lax gun laws means that some activities that are crimes in New York City are completely permissible in Buford County, Georgia.But more basically, you are extremely uncritical about these statistics to the point where you are spending more time trying to find excuses for Lott's behavior than you are for providing sources of data.If you cite an apparently argument winning stat, you should expect the source to be questioned. In this case we find a known liar swearing to stuff and in some cases backing up stuff by citing his own books. Nothing illegal about that, but doing so simply adds his books to the stack of stuff to be questioned.As always, the jeer button is on the left, marked with a minus sign.

You explicitly ascribed a motivation to my questions that wasn't true. No, you're wrong. The claim has been stated matter of factly with the study as the evidence. I'm asking if the evidence is strong enough to make the statement. So do you think it is or not? Its telling that you won't reply: "Yes, this is good data".I'm not at the point where I'm saying the claim is wrong and I'm not discounting the data. My questions stand.But this is kinda funny now. Faith posted about some evidence that you did NOT like the ramification of, and you went so far as to dig up how the author has behaved on internet forums. But if I question the data used for claims that you DO like the ramifications of, then I'm being a dismissive jerk for asking questions. But I guess that's just gun threads for you... nothing brings out the irrationality better. A little consistancy would have been nice, though. Again, when I see good data its no problem to say: "Yes, this is good data".I think the claims have been overstated. The data isn't as strong as is implied. I would think that the number of homicides that occur is directly relevant to the chances of being the victim of a homicide.

...Bear arms in militia statutes and official reports represents a very broad context of military obligation and compulsory military service. On the other hand, the term was rarely used in acts for raising voluntary provincial forces and then only to describe the manpower pool from which to draw. Therefore, "bear arms" represented the broadest conception of military (mostly militia) service. Some of the militia acts and other documents contained explanatory language defining at least in part what they meant by "bear arms." All refer to some aspect of military service. For example: 1665: "to bear Armes or wage war by sea or Land."(111) 1669: "to bear arms, and serve as soldiers."(112) 1676: "to beare armes in martiall or millitary manner."(113) 1730: "to bear Arms, or learn or exercise himself in the Art of War."(114) 1731: "bearing arms or attending musters and training."(115) 1755: "the bearing of arms or Military Service."(116) 1775: "bear Arms, nor be concerned in warlike Preparations."(117) 1775: "bearing arms in the militia."(118) 1780: "Bairing Arms or Doing Duty" in the militia (119) 1787: "principled against fighting or bearing arms."(120 ...The definition for "bear arms" found in the Oxford English Dictionary is stated clearly: " ‘to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight,’ dating to about the year 1330. And, defines the term to bear arms against as: to be engaged in hostilities with." dating the usage back to about the year 1000.The Oxford dictionary, however, it not a legal document. So the definition of the terms of the second amendment should be further elucidated within the American laws and most influential legal documents. In Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, the powers of Congress are given.
The Congress shall have the power 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.The militia itself is not defined in the constitution, but it is clear, because the Constitution is a federal document that it is a federal, not a state or private matter. As well, reserving to the states the appointment of officers and granting authority of training fall under the category of "well-regulation."The original purpose for such an amendment was solely to remove any authority Congress had to abolish a sanctioned well regulated Militia. In other words, the "well regulated Militia" of the second amendment is the same state militia of Articles I and II of the Constitution. It is very clear that the founding fathers (1) gave Congress power to organize, arm, discipline, and govern the state militias (2) made the president Commander in Chief of the Militia and 3) ensured that as long as the militia was well maintained it could not be subject to disunion by Congress. The purpose was to keep the military well-organized and accountable for proper training instead of a bunch of good ole boys without any discipline, training, or mandatory allegiance. They were addressing the same lone wolf lawless issues that have recently developed into random public shootings.

I know plenty about what the founders meant.We can look to their works, letters, debates and public discourse.Thomas Jefferson, during his sixth annual message in 1806 said, "The criminal attempts of private individuals to decide for their country the question of peace or war, by commencing active and unauthorized hostilities , should be promptly and efficaciously suppressed."Again in 1808 in his eighth annual message, he reiterated this idea: "for a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us, at every meeting to revise the condition of the militia, and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion."In the Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Madison is noted as saying, The state governments are to govern the militia when not called forth for general purposes; and Congress is to govern such part only as may be in the actual service of the union. Nothing can be more certain and positive than this. It expressly empowers Congress to govern them when in the service of the United States . It is, then, clear that the states govern them when they are not.If we believe that it is our right, granted to us by the second amendment to the United States Constitution, to own guns without any restriction or regulation to such a right and without military allegiance on our part, then our belief is wrong.

In a perfect society populated by perfect human beings a proliferation of deadly weapons would be neither here nor there.But in an imperfect society populated by imperfect human beings where social problems and violence are a fact of life a proliferation of readily accessible deadly weapons will exacerbate, rather than help, such a situation. Hence the need for controls and restrictions on such devices.Do you actually disagree with that?