Summations Only

Hi Percy, Well it is not news to me.In Message 1585 I pointed out several places where the source of the firearm or the place of the murder could be determined.I will copy a couple to refresh your memory, you can go back and check further if you desire.

quote:

---

In 2010
110 husbands were murdered by their wives or ex-wives.

​

NOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place or who committed the murder, or with what weapon.

​

603 wives were murdered by their husbands or ex-husbands.
NOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place or who committed the murder, or with what weapon.

---

You can ignore what I said if you want too.But you are the one that placed the constraint on where the gun had to be.In the post you are replying to I quoted the following:

quote:

---

In Message 1699 you state:

​

Percy writes:

​

In other words, having a gun in the home makes you less safe, not more safe.

---

Now if you would like for me to go back to Message 1666 and present the 8 quotes where you said similar things I will.Your contention is that any person who purchases a firearm for self-defence is in greater danger by having a firearm in the house.If that firearm is not the cause of the victims death it is not the cause of the death and therefore did not place the owner in greater jepodary.I will agree that many people who purchase a firearm could be putting themselves in greater danger by purchasing a firearm.If they have never had firearm training and do not get firearm training they are at great risk of harming themself or someone in the house.But a firearm nut is not in that class as they have had firearm training. Most are ex-military or people who have received training from a very early age.In the study you mentioned at the bottom of your post it says: "This total included 54 unintentional shootings".There is no such thing as an unintentional shooting, or accidental shooting.Accidents do no(t) happen with firearms. Any accidental or unintentional shooting happens because someone was careless handling a firearm.A firearm is a very dangerous weapon in the hands of a person who does not respect them or know how to handle them.I have owned firearms since I was seven years old. I have never had a firearm discharge a projectile that I did not intend for the projectile to hit a specific target.My dad taught me to never point a firearm at anything you did not intend to kill, or hit such as a target.That is the way a firearm is supposed to be handled. If a person is not willing to handle a firearm in a safe manner they should not own one. Why should I provide the link when I am answering a post in which you have provided the link and I reference my quote as from your source. Further thinking about it I did provide a source, you. I will stipulate that a person that commits suicide with a firearm either had the firearm in their home or on their person. But if that person is determined to commit suicide they will whether they have a gun or not. You do remember I said that I had a very close friend who committed suicide with a firearm. He tried and failed the first time and we worked with him for almost three years and he finally tried a second time and succeeded. He was determined to commit suicide and he did.Now a person that is only after attention would shoot themselves in a way that they will not die, but will get the sympathy they was after. But not too many choose to use a firearm to get sympathy they usually mean business. But many use pills or slashing wrists to get attention and sympathy.But Percy what does your argument, "having a gun in the home makes you less safe, not more safe", have to do with the government infringing my right to keep and bear Arms?God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : change no to not

Hi Taq, Where does the constitution in the second amendment give the government the authority to put in place regulations that limit which arms I can buy and own?Here is the second amendment.

quote:

---

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.

---

Now to the definition of Arms.

quote:

---

The National Firearms Act²⁰ (NFA) does not define arms in general terms, but does exhaustively list what items count as firearms under Federal law, including shotguns²¹, rifles²², machine guns²³, silencers²⁴, and the catch-all terms any other weapon²⁵ or destructive devices.²⁶

---

20 26 USC 5845 et seq.
21 26 USC 5845(a)(1)-(2)
22 26 USC 5845(a)(3)-(4)
23 26 USC 5845(a)(6)
24 26 USC 5845(a)(7), referencing the silencer definition in 18 USC 921.
25 26 USC 5845(a)(5). The Act uses the term any other weapon here to mean any of several unorthodox projectile-shooting devices.
26 26 USC 5845(a)That is what our government describes as Arms.But lets go a little further.

quote:

---

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act²⁷ (OCCSSA) defines firearm as any weapon which is designed as or may be readily convertible to expel a projectile.²⁸ The definition also includes the frame or receiver of such a weapon²⁹, any firearm muffler or firearm silencer³⁰, or any destructive device. ³¹

---

"Destructive devices would include bombs, missiles, rockets, grenades, mines and similar devices, whether they have explosive, incendiary, or poison-gas warheads. Also aircraft carriers, jets armed with missiles and machine gun, tanks etc.27 18 USC 921 et seq.
28 18 USC 921(a)(3)(A)
29 18 USC 921(a)(3)(B)
30 18 USC 921(a)(3)(C)
31 18 USC 921(a)(4). Interestingly, this section includes some potentially heavy weapons that might not be man-portable.Neither of those help your definition of Arms.The Declaration of Independence mentions Arms one time. It recites a litany of King George III’s violations of American rights, he had taken captive Americans on the high seas, and made them to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.³² Arms there would include ships, cannons and any other weaponry on board the ship. In other words military weapons.
32 Declaration of IndependenceAlexander Hamilton, in Federalist 29, Concerning the Militia, 1788 stated:

quote:

---

...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

---

Hamilton thought Arms meant that the citizen was to have weapons equal to the standing army or very little if inferior.I know you don't like these arguments but so far you have only made assertions.Present any facts you have that you think support your position.God Bless,

Hi Theodoric, Neither.A soverign right due to the thousands who shed their blood and many giving their life to free themselves and us from British rule and oppression. According to Hamilton my personal weapons are to be equal to and if inferior very little to the weapons of the standing army.
Federalist 29, Concerning the Militia, 1788. What does the mainstream thinking have to do with what the second amendment says?

Hi Tangle, First you need to get the approval of the second amendment before you regulate firearms.It allows no regulation even those that are in place now.Therefore to regulate firearms the Constitution needs to be amended, to reflect a repeal of the second amendment and its being replaced by a new amendment which would have to be ratified by 38 States to become law.That is the way our Constitution is set up.God Bless,

Hi Tangle, I would not say it is a man made law but a group of laws that was written up and then presented to the States for ratification. Which after much discussion which can be found in the Federalist papers and amendments proposed was ratified by the States.And yes I stated what was required to change it.Do we need some regulation of firearms? I believe we do.But don't try to cram it down my throat without changing the second amendment.Then if the second amendment can't get changed by 38 states we will have to live with what we got.God Bless,

Hi Theodoric, And what makes you think you are trying to talk rationally?You have presented ZERO information to support your position.In Message 1730 you referenced this Source. Then you stated that the British troops were to retrieve the (King's) powder. When the article plainly states it was provincial powder that had been seized. Provincial means local providence. Sure I do.It can refer to a King or a Queen or some other supreme ruler.
It can refer to a person who has supreme power or authority.
It can refer to a group of people or a State having supreme power or authority.In my case I was refering to the one where a person has supreme power and authority to keep and bear arms. Due to the fact that it was purchased by the lives and blood of thousands of people to free themselves and us from British rule and oppression.Which they preserved with the second amendment to the Constitution.God Bless,

Hi Percy, Where did I make such a claim? But you did reference the owner in that statement.Having a gun in THE home. Whose home are you refering too? THE home of YOU.Makes YOU less safe. Who does YOU refer too? Home owner.According to Percy a gun in the home of YOU makes YOU less safe.Who is going to put a gun in the home of YOU?Now if you let anyone but YOU put a gun in YOU home YOU are an idiot.But I did not realize I needed to present the following along with the statement "having a gun in the home makes you less safe" to make my point.But I will present them here.In Message 1522 you said:
"but the mere presence of the gun itself in your home or on your person is an ever present threat to all in its vicinity."In Message 1527 you said:
"A gun is a threat to everyone in the vicinity. Everyone nearby is at greater risk of gun death merely due to proximity. Nothing else is possible. The risk of gun death must be zero when no guns are around, and it can only increase when guns are introduced.".In Message 1538 you said:
"while the gun in one's home or on one's person is an ever present danger."In Message 1562 you said:
"In other words, having a gun in the home makes you less safe, not more safe".In Message 1572 you said:
"No, ICANT, it doesn't. The FBI data shows that thousands of people are murdered every year just because there was a gun in the home."In Message 1576 you said:
"But again, even if we just say for the sake of argument that you're correct that a few hundred more homeowners would die every year if they had no guns, that's still no comparison to the thousands who die every year just because there's a gun in the house."In Message 1584 you said:
at least thousands of people are murdered every year simply because a gun was available when someone became angry or distraught or depressed or drunk or drug-ridden or crazy".In Message 1589 you said:
"...anyone who purchases a gun for home defense is in the paradoxical position of having placed themselves at greater risk"I did not realize your memory was so short. I though I was the one that was supposed to have senior moments.God Bless,

Hi zong, The second amendment is divided into two parts: its prefactory clause and its operative clause.The first four words are the prefactory clause.
The 3rd word regulated and the 2nd word are both a part of the prefatory clause .
Note there is a comma after the fourth word which is also a part of the prefatory clause.Now according to Justice Scalia in the majority opinion in the District of Columbia vs HellerThe prefactory clause anounces a purpose and does not limit or expand the operative clause. Now I ask again where in the second amendment is the government given any authority to limit the right to keep and bear Arms. According to the second amendment the citizens do have that right.That is why I would like to see the Constitution amended to place limits on what we can possess.But I do not want to see the Constitution trashed by executive orders or laws passed by Congress. Amend the Constitution the way it is supposed to be amended. If there is not 38 States that can get together and agree on a solution to the present problem we will have to live with what we have.God Bless,

Hi Taq, Why does the Second Amendment have to give permission to the people to keep and bear Arms?In fact the only thing the Second Amendment limits is the governments ability to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. But any rulings the courts have made does not change what the Constitution says.It would take a Constitutional amendment and that amendment being ratified by 38 States to change what the Constitution says.Read my reply to zongsmiths message 1786, above.God Bless

Hi Tempe, Any restrictions would be an infringement. My mind and eyes are failing me. Could you give me the Section and the line that statement is on. Again could you give me Section and line that power is given.God Bless,

Hi Taq, It is infringing on my right to be able to face the enemy with equal weapons. It is based on what the second amendment says.Courts over the years have been stacked with liberal judges and yes they have tried to change the Constitution. But the fact remains the Constitution still stands and they have not changed the original meaning.At the time the second amendment was written the Arms of the people were to be the same as the military so the local militia was equipted just as well as a standing army.God Bless,

Hi Rahvin, Yes. How and Why? Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?Try #29 and you will find the argument to get the Constitution ratified was that the people were to have equal weapons with a standing army and if inferior very little.So yes it was settled before they ratified the Constitution. The question in my lifetime has always been is the people allowed to have Arms. If it was left up to those pushing for banning assault look alike weapons had there way the government would confiscate all weapons and then only the military and police forces would have weapons. OH and I forgot about the criminals they will always have guns and the people who do not have guns will be at the mercy of the criminals and the government slave owners. Where in the commerce clause does it give Congress the power to nulify the second amendment?In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370 Justice Scalia in the majority report said that the Court did not have that power.The commerce clause gives the Congress power to regulate what can be imported and exported from the US.The commerce clause gives the Congress power to regulate the importation and exportationn between the States and the duties or taxes that can be levied by one State on said items.I don't see where it can regulate what can be built and sold in a State.I can buy an AR15 with 2 30 round magazines which is manafactured in my State so where does the commerce clause cover whether I can or can not buy that AR15? The only thing that the second amendment guarantees is that the government can not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.Have you ever read the Federalist papers in which the arguments were presented to get the States to ratify the Constitution. New York and Virginia were the hardest to convince concerning the second amendment, guarding the rights of the people. Go figure.Do I think there should be some regulations? Yes.I think in the present society that if a person wants to purchase a gun they should have proper safety and use of a gun classes before they take posession of the gun.If there are other people in the home I believe they should have the same course.They should be mentaly fit and not a convicted fellon.But as I have stated it should be done by a Constitutional amendment with 38 States hashing out and ratifying the amendment.The present regulations is unConstitutional.God Bless,

Hi Theodoric, I don't think Justice Scalia was around during the period from 1900 to 1930 as a judge. That is when presidents were set that he has not overruled. From Federalist Paper # 29, Alexander Hamilton's argument to the people of the State of New York for ratification of the Constitution.

quote:

---

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

---

Emphasis added.Hamilton argued that the weapons of the citizens should be equal to any standing army or very little if any inferior to their weapons.These arguments are what caused the States to ratify the Constitution.Here is a little more information for you to digest.

quote:

---

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,(C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

​

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)

​

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

​

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment ( I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789})

​

"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" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888)

​

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

​

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." (William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

​

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

​

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

​

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses (London, 1774-1775)

---

SourceThat should be enough for you to see what the arguments was during and after the ratification of the Constitution.God Bless,

Hi Dr, Are you saying Hamilton did not argue in the Federalist Paper #29 the following:

quote:

---

This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

---

Emphasis added.God Bless,

Hi Taq, I posted earlier the duties of the Court and nowhere in it did I see the authority given to interpret the Constitution.I did get the idea they were supposed to make sure the laws passed by the Congress was in line with what was written in the Constitution. Why can't I disagree with the Court? They get up in the morning and put their clothes on, which I do also.You don't get to pick and choose either.The Constitution is the law of the land until changed by the States.There was those in the early 1800's that wanted to limit the weapons the citizens could own and there have been those from that time to this that wants to disarm the citizens. Judges today go along with decision of Judges that was made long ago. But just because some Judge thought something was right does not make it right.Obama has put forth a mandatory buy back. That means confiscation.God Bless,