Summations Only

Yes, it was part of the discussion and debate at the time. It didn't make it into the amendment. Yes, and it's an example of what everyone was already telling you.--Percy

The founders were not the apostles and they were not all of one mind. In fact they disagreed about almost everything and were forced into compromises almost everywhere. Had there been sufficient consensus about resistance to tyranny as part of the justification then it would have made it into the amendment.The 2nd amendment is the only one in the Bill of Rights with a justification, and that justification was placed there to make clear that the motivation was the need for a militia, not the need to resist tyranny. Those views you want included were obviously of a minority of founders, else those views would already be there.Obviously the amendment needs to be updated so it is properly suited to current requirements. And what I said also had nothing in common with the National Guard.To reexplain at greater length, at the time you posted that Battle of New Orleans video it was an example of what everyone was already telling you, that in militias of the period soldiers provided their own guns.--Percy

Hi Tempe,I agree with this comment, and in fact have said this several times in this thread alone: But we can apply this to more than just antiquated statements, so when you go on to say this: My reaction is that we hold life much more precious today than a couple centuries ago. For example, the more civilized the country the less likely is capital punishment. We do have to start taking away people's guns because we hold life far too precious to leave life or death decisions up to self appointed individuals.--Percy

I really did mean that we have to *start* taking people's guns away. We start now with the assault weapons. What the next step is and how far it goes beyond that is hard to say, but we start there. My reasoning for giving those priority is because they are most often used for what to me feels like the worst kind of murder, namely indiscriminate killing of multiple innocent people unknown to the murderer and who have done him no harm.--Percy

A recent firearm study reveals that states with the most gun laws have the fewest murders: Fewer gun deaths in states with most gun laws, study findsThis would seem to support the view that if the goal is reducing the number of murders, then the means is more gun laws.--Percy

I think you can trust the figures. The executions graph is from Wikipedia, and I've seen other graphs of murder rates that had pretty much the same shape. Here's a graph I found on the web that looks a lot like Kofh2u's: Here's another one over a longer span of time: Because our population keeps increasing I don't like the fact that murders are per capita while executions are not, but I couldn't find a graph with executions per capita, except this one that begins back in the 1600's. But this executions graph shows no big uptick at the end of the 1900's: Here's an executions chart with data right up through 2012, and it shows that the number of executions annually has halved since its peek at the end of the 1900's: But isn't Kofh2u just agreeing with us regarding using legislation to help bring down the murder rate? Isn't he saying the stronger the laws (including enforcement) the lower the crime rate, in this case for murder?I, personally, am against capital punishment, but I do have to agree that these graphs are consistent with a deterrent effect. However, the murders we think most closely correlated with gun ownership rates are those of and by people known to each other, in other words, family, friends, acquaintances and co-workers.So if Kofh2u had his way, in addition to all the hardened career criminals on death row for murders committed during the commission of a crime, there would also be many more wives, husbands, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, friends, co-workers and acquaintances who often are guilty of little more than being unfortunate enough to have a gun available for them to pick up when they were angry or drunk or stoned or despondent or otherwise not in their right mind.Of course, legislation is unlikely to have any effect on suicide.--Percy

I think the claim of driving as a privilege might come from driver education classes and public safety campaigns here in the states, and that message has so saturated the land that everyone just accepts it as true. If driving as a privilege does actually have a legal foundation maybe CS can find it.--Percy

???If this was supposed to be analogous to differing gun laws, it fails badly. A guy who can't buy a gun in his own state because of the background check can buy it in another state, then bring that gun back into his own state. In your analogy the trip to Illinois confers on him no right to ride without a helmet in his own state, but he can still tote that gun he bought in some nearby state.A better analogy might be alcohol. Back before the national 21-year old drinking age the states used to all set their own drinking ages. In the 1960's 18-year olds in New Jersey (where the drinking age was 21) could drive into New York, buy alcohol, then bring it back. Of course, while the analogy works, it doesn't support your position.--Percy

Politically I'm not particular about the source of the solution, but the border problems associated with state-level solutions make me lean toward a federal solution.--Percy

The terms evidence, data and raw data can be ambiguous. Theodoric is citing the results of a study and calling them evidence, while it seems that Catholic Scientist wants to see raw data but is also calling that evidence.--Percy

Neither is it an unsupported assertion, and you've left the ambiguity of the term "data" unresolved. Theodoric is using the term "data" to refer to the results and conclusions of studies, while you're using it to refer to the actual reports themselves (when they become available), or perhaps you mean the raw data.But I think most people would think you well within your rights to insist on seeing the report before deciding whether or not it's a point in favor of Theodoric's position."There's a study that shows you're wrong." Now that's an unsupported assertion.--Percy

At one time car accidents caused more deaths in the United States than guns, but through regulation cars were made safer and safer until gun deaths now outnumber car deaths. If regulation can make cars safer then it could make guns safer, too. Fearing something that is involved in the deaths of around 30,000 people a year isn't irrational, but the objection to guns is based not so much on fear but more on concern about the awful annual toll. It needn't be this way.--Percy

Safety regulations regarding roads and vehicles have reduced traffic fatalities by about 20,000 annually since the 1970's, despite total vehicle miles increasing seven-fold.If it works for cars, why not for guns?--Percy

You're the only one here displaying such a callous disregard. What's not to like about guns if it weren't for all the murder and mayhem? You need to put brain in gear before engaging fingers. If guns weren't responsible for 30,000 deaths annually in the US, if the figure were something more like 50 (lightening), few would be much concerned.--Percy

I think you realize that what's monstrous about your views is that you put a higher value on your fun than on human life.--Percy