The Right to Bear Arms

[Aurielius]

And just something else to think about...............

 

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

 

 

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

-- George Washington

 

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be armed properly. " -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

 

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

 

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin. Historical Review of Pa

 

"You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one".

-- Rush Limbaugh, 17 Aug 1993

 

Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'

-- Mao Tse-tung, 1938,

 

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840

[Maharg67]

Anybody can produce a whole lot of quotes into a debate, especially over used quotes that do not really add anything positive to the debate. So I will do the same.

 

I believe everyody in the world should have guns. Citizens should have bazookas and rocket launchers too. I believe that all citizens should have their weapons of choice. However, I also believe that only I should have the ammunition. Because frankly, I wouldn't trust the rest of the goobers with anything more dangerous than string.

-Scott Adams

 

The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms.' If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

-Ken Konecki, July 27, 1992

 

The right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

-U.S. vs Cruikshan

 

For target shooting, that's okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments.

-James Brady

 

As for the following quote, as a Former Communist, I can tell you that has been misused in this debate as it was focused a different issue. It was about the right of the Communists to have organised military forces as a whole, not about the rights of individuals to own guns.

Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'

-- Mao Tse-tung, 1938

 

People seem to see having any real regulations of guns as being the same as a total ban on owning any guns but they are different.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Maharg67

[Aurielius]

@Maharg67

Four of them are founding fathers of the country, one of them is a pacifist and one is more on your side of the aisle than mine. Dazzling me with colors instead of logic won't change that, if I'd arranged them in red ,white and blue I might understand the necessity for a visual riposte. It was not organized to intimidate thinking, but to promote it.

[Maharg67]

@Maharg67

Four of them are founding fathers of the country, one of them is a pacifist and one is more on your side of the aisle than mine. Dazzling me with colors instead of logic won't change that, if I'd arranged them in red ,white and blue I might understand the necessity for a visual riposte. It was not organized to intimidate thinking, but to promote it.

 

The only reason I used colours is I like using colours (I am an artist) but I will remove them so as not to give further offense. When I speak of over using quotes, I mean anybody can do so no matter what argument or side of debate they are supporting. Back when I was an active radical lefty I used to get tired of the over use of certain quotes by my associates.

 

As for logic, there was logic in what I said, especially about the quote from Moa Tse-tung and about there being a difference between wanting to regulate guns and to ban the ownership of guns outright. I am against the total banning of guns but would like the regulating of guns. As an Australian my considerations are more about my own country where there has also been debates about such things but where most people are for gun control. Ye many people still own guns in Australia.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Maharg67

[Kendo 2]

2ND AMENDMENT of the CONSTITUTION

It's a two parter:

#1) "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

#2) "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

The intent is clear and is interpreted by the bodies of the State, not by gun-hating native civilians, foreign nationals OR American firearms owners.

#1) is a proviso for a civilian militia to be mustered/levied as needed by the State. The need to call up the militia is deemed by the Administrative and ratified by the Legislative. The Amendment does not call into question the base need for a militia and the government cannot lawfully deem militias as unnecessary or illegal.

#2) allows for the private ownership of firearms by rightful citizens. There is NO CLAUSE stating, "until we the State deems otherwise." If that were the case no one would have cause to complain if the government decided 'okay, no more guns.' But the Amendment is clear and it STANDS as written. Individual States can and have made their own firearm laws but they are all within reasonable bounds of the Amendment.

 

If I need to pull out case law I will. ;)

 

LHammonds nailed this down on page one of this thread and I haven't read one opposing post with the legal or practical merit his words have. As Americans and human beings we have the organic right to defend ourselves and our property. The police are 20 minutes away on an average 911 call. A lot can happen in 20 minutes.

[Maharg67]

Yes, but as a citizen and a human being do you have the right to defend yourself with a handgun or a powerful automatic military weapon?

 

I already said I am not for banning guns outright but am for regulating weapons.

Regulating means keeping guns in a safely hidden and well locked storage place which stops intruders getting your gun first or children etc. Such places can be designed to be reached and opened quickly by an owner in an emergency.

Regulating means giving people power enough to defend themselves with out giving them the power to wipe out the neighbourhood.

Regulating means being able to keep, organise militias to defend oneself from external or internal threats at a neighbourhood, community level.

 

As for legal, it is always open to interpretation, as the history of law shows.

 

As for logic, I studied logic at university and it is often a term that is missued and should be kept out of certain debates. Logic as in models of logic, as in scientific observation, as in scientific methodologies, as in impericism, as in? Debates like this one are always going to be subjective though they might pretend to be objective.

[Aurielius]

In both the Hungarian uprising of 56 and the Czech revolt of 68 the limitation of an armed civilian populace is what facilitated their suppression by the former Red Soviet Army. In the later case even the availability of ammunition to police was restricted in the month prior to the tanks rolling across the border.

This debate is about the 'Right' to bear arms not about gun safety, or who is more properly trained mechanically,psychologically or ethically to utilize deadly force. The inherent right to defend myself is balanced by the judicial review of my actions by the local DA, the lack of this right would change that review from the DA to the Coroner.

There are I admit, some overzealous gun advocates that want every auto weapon available but in a real conflict in the streets they will be quickly weeded out, due to their illusion of superior firepower. A good sniper shoots once then moves on, in which a bolt action hunting rifle is more suited than an assault weapon.Combat Darwinism will take care of the nimrods in short order.

A case in point would be England where ownership is very restricted but weapon related crime is constantly increasing, the thugs are armed but the civilians and most police are not.They are finding to their dismay neither safety or security with their restrictions. The assumption that if you are a civil member of society you will safe from predation is illusory.

A friend and I were dicussing his new Concealed Weapons Permit when his girfriend piped up and asked why we carried pistols everywhere we went. I quickly answered, "Because a cop is too heavy and won't fit in my pocket."

For the record, you can have my weapon when you pry it from my cold dead hand, not a moment before.

 

"God is not on the side of the heavy battalions, but rather the best shots"

Voltaire

[Kendo 2]

I can typify American firearms owners into three broad groups.

 

Fringe Element Wackos

These are the guys that get together every weekend to brink beer or smoke grass, shoot junker Chi Com surplus automatic weapons using crappy 7.62x39mm ball ammo. When they're done they recite pledges of allegiance surrounded by flags that symbolize things they have no real understanding of. The Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panthers are prime examples of these groups. When the media does a piece on gun control they resort to these groups as 'reasons' gun control is needed. IF the government started a serious crackdown on private gun ownership these groups would be the first ones to die stupidly or simply throw down their weapons and run like the cowards they are.

 

Criminals

As criminals are sociopaths and don't respect others or the law they will keep their weapons regardless of what the government might say or do. They don't care.

 

Lawful Citizens

We would be the ones who suffer the most as we are easy targets for government crackdowns. Our guns would be the first to be confiscated, since many of us have proper licenses and there are government records. I will happily give my registered $210.00 22Lrifle revolver, since it's the only firearm I own. Anything else I don't have I didn't buy before February 28, 1994.

[Aurielius]

As for logic, there was logic in what I said, especially about the quote from Moa Tse-tung and about there being a difference between wanting to regulate guns and to ban the ownership of guns outright. I am against the total banning of guns but would like the regulating of guns.

@Marharg67

I'll give you proprietary rights over Mao Tse-tung but the interpretation of the quoted Constitutional signatories, there I believe I have a better grasp of their intent than you....(he says politely). The 2nd Amendment is integral with the social fabric of the United States. Though there are references (not yours) to the US not being in the days of the wild west, so negating the need for self defence. I would point out that in that period where almost everyone was armed west of the Mississippi that politeness ruled in society, because one was held lethally responsible for insults, slights or lack of accepted courtesy.

[Maharg67]

I do not want to take your gun off you and have no desire to remove it from you cold dead hands.

 

The right to bear guns and gun safety can not be seperated as issues as the latter is a reason for regulating the first.

 

I have no priority rights over Moa Tse-tung and nor do I wish any. I do concede that you most likely have a deeper understanding of the issues of the Second Amendment than I do.

 

The UK might be having problems with rising violence, as does Australia, but statistically there is still much more chance of being violently assaulted in the USA than in either country. Australian Police normally carry both semiautomatic pistols and tazers but violent incidents against police here have risen despite this.

 

In the cases of both the Hungarian uprising of 56 and the Czech revolt of 68 the issues went far beyond the problem of private ownership of weapons. More importantly was the failure of the citizenry of either country to have control their national military forces. In the Hungrarian uprising militas did manage to capture weapons and in one important area at least managed to fight local Soviet forces to a stand still. When the Soviets invaded they did so with overwhelming force and mass slaughter.

 

Your understanding of the history of the Wild West and mine are very different (politely, I will leave it at that).

 

As for Concealed Weapon Permit story, if one has good reason to have a gun, then concealment is common sense for many reasons under certain conditions; many police officers, plain clothed of course, conceal their guns as to better carry out their duties. These would have been a better answer to the 'girlfriend' as the 'cop in a pocket' response sounded too glib. You do not have to conceal a gun to use a gun for self defence and in fact having a gun exposed to view may stop any aggression in the first place just as the open presence of obivously armed police often does. The statement seems pointless when referring to the issue of the right to bear arms.

 

"God is not on the side of the heavy battalions, but rather the best shots"

Voltaire

 

As for the above quote, its meaning is more subtle than it might seem, are the words of a very complicated man and need not be taken on face value. He was talking about 'God' and the 'Church', about his own dealings with the Catholic Clergy and the French Nobility.

 

I see no more point in taking part in this debate. I think it is good that not all people agree with me but this debate is getting just a little too heated.