marharth Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) I don't think the firearm homicide rate matters as much the homicide rate as a whole does. If you get rid of guns, some gun homicides will go down. That doesn't mean the same person couldn't stab someone to death. Edited October 6, 2011 by marharth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WizardOfAtlantis Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 the founding fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote it. they gave us our right to bare arms, not to defend ourselves from one anotherIncorrect, actually. The latest constitutional research has shown that self-defense actually was a consideration. There is a wonderful documentary on the 2nd Ammendment, here's their site. The real question for gun supporters is; how many lives are worth your "right to bear arms"?Let me quote Thomas Jefferson for you. "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from man because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, will respect the less important arbitrary ones....and which, if strictly obeyed would put a end to personal liberty?....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than a armed man."-- Thomas Jefferson And yet another of historical import: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" --Patrick Henry, fomenter of the American Revolution, on March 23, 1775 for sending out troops to meet the British Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 It seems to me based on the amendment that it was mainly for a civilian military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WizardOfAtlantis Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 It seems to me based on the amendment that it was mainly for a civilian military.The wonderful documentary I linked to above shows that it was more than just that. Constitutional scholars have in these last years gone into great depth studying the amendment, which includes studying the various drafts that were made by the original states in the process of coming up with what we now see as the 2nd Amendment, among other things if I don't remember incorrectly (personal letters?...sorry, I need to watch it again, it's been a while), that give the background of what these men were thinking when they came up with the words that they put on paper. Drafts, and the ideas behind them, if you will....much of their 'original intent' as the politicians of today like to banter for their own ends. And original intent is what it's all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) Well the reason I say that is because it specifically mentions the following at the start... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" While I do think that personal defense was one of the reasons it was put in, I think it had more to do with having a civilian militia. Edited October 7, 2011 by marharth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 The wonderful documentary I linked to above...Most of us don't have time to watch an entire documentary... If you could list the major points from it, and the sources from the filmmakers providing evidence to support said major points, you would save everyone a lot of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) The wonderful documentary I linked to above...Most of us don't have time to watch an entire documentary... If you could list the major points from it, and the sources from the filmmakers providing evidence to support said major points, you would save everyone a lot of time.If you are interested make the time..I did. Do you expect him to make a precis for your sole convenience? :facepalm: Edited October 7, 2011 by Aurielius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannywils Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 And did anyone read the quote that Wiz gave from Thomas Jefferson??? Why am I even posting this?? I am opposed to guns, for crying out loud; but at least I read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Not so much a précis as just a brief overview and a credible source citation. And not for my sole convenience either, but for anybody who didn't feel like investing an hour or more of their life when a simple, "Jefferson said x y and z according to his letters to so and so" would do. Please get off my back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WizardOfAtlantis Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 The wonderful documentary I linked to above...Most of us don't have time to watch an entire documentary... If you could list the major points from it, and the sources from the filmmakers providing evidence to support said major points, you would save everyone a lot of time.You don't have an hour and a half of time? Sorry to disagree but I think that most people that spend time on an internet forum actually do have an hour and a half of time to spend watching a documentary. Whether they want to is another question. Maybe you don't want to, maybe you personally draconix really don't have the time and I'm sorry for that, but I'm sure most people on this forum do have the time. Just like I'm sure most of them will choose what to do with that time the way they see fit. How about the few seconds it takes to click on the link I gave and then click on the link on their front page where it says "Who We Interviewed" and answer the second part of your question on your own? If not, that's laziness. Who remembers details like that from a documentary they watched half a year ago? I can't remember those details...that's why I gave the link. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/blush.gif The whole documentary details the work of historians and constitutional scholars as they do what they do, simply put. I am certainly not going to give a who-said-what type-scripting it from a documentary. That would take far too much of my time (and I have type scripted films before, so I know what I'm saying). I certainly don't remember names and numbers, having watched the documentary only once. You know, I wonder, but did you read what I quoted from Thomas Jefferson in my post? I actually went to the source there and played constitutional scholar myself. He very explicitly expected people to not only be able to possess arms, but to be able to carry them around AND use them in self-defense. He was a Founding Father, and therefore his intentions are what is behind the framing of those words (of the amendment), and original intent weighs like a meteorite upon that paper. That's part of the job of a constitutional scholar, as I understand it: defining original intent, as it gives the framework for the words. The color to the black and white, if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts