I guess so. Funny thing is – it was his first post on T-Nation!
Hate say this but “Guns don’t kill people. People kill People.” Your hands can be a deadly weapon.
I am not someone who cares for guns.
But, its your right to protect you home how ever you see fit…
I pissed off that I can’t buy a real
Nunchakus in my state. Not that I’ll ever use it.
Here’s something that gets little attention in discussions like this: Amendment II
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.
“A well regulated militia” is a very important phrase in the second amendment. Many Americans who try to use the Second Amendment as their boon for gun owners rights hate the idea that their gun ownership would be regulated at all. The Second Amendment does not guarantee that every individual American can defend his home as he sees fit. It guarantees the American people as a whole the right to arm themselves against prospective tyrants in a well regulated and formal setting. The language of that amendment is straight forward.
Todd
How many times does someone have to read your immature liberal tripe before they draw an opinion?
todd:
I think you would have to define the word “Militia” and “well regulated” before you draw any final conclusions.
You decide to purchase a gun because 15 of your friends have guns and have begun a Militia. Where does it state that the governement of the United States shall be the “regulator?” Perhaps “well regulated” means it is regulated within the Militia.
[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Here’s something that gets little attention in discussions like this: Amendment II
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.
“A well regulated militia” is a very important phrase in the second amendment. Many Americans who try to use the Second Amendment as their boon for gun owners rights hate the idea that their gun ownership would be regulated at all. The Second Amendment does not guarantee that every individual American can defend his home as he sees fit. It guarantees the American people as a whole the right to arm themselves against prospective tyrants in a well regulated and formal setting. The language of that amendment is straight forward.
Todd[/quote]
Here are some quotes from the founders of the Constiution on the 2nd Amendment.
-
Thomas Jefferson. No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
-
John Adams. Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense.
-
Samuel Adams. The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
-
Thomas Paine. Arms discourage and keep invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order as well as property. Horrid mischief would enuse were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
-
James Madison. The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, where the government is afraid to trust the people with arms.
-
Robert H. Lee. Amilitia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and all men capable of bearing arms.
-
George Mason. I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
As you can see, the founders intended Americans the “Right to Bear Arms.”
Neeraj,
Welcome aboard.
Where did you get the “22x more likely to be shot by a gun” figure? I dont know how accurate that is statistically, but it would actually make sense. If you don’t drive or get in cars, I would say your chance of being killed in an auto accident also goes down significantly. But how realistic is this for most? If your number is correct, it underscores one fact…if you are going to bear arms you have to be responsible. Get trained in how to use them, study the craft like you would any other subject and carefully guard who has access to your weapons.
I favor the barest amount of firearms regulation. I feel instant background checks are a good thing to prevent felons from purchasing guns. I also believe in very strong criminal penalties for gun crimes. Thats it, however. No banning certain types of weapons because you dont like the way they look. No ammunition or weapons tax other than sales tax. All these kind of things are bullshit and an affront to our American heritage, plain and simple.
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
I don’t know that I’ve ever said anything resembling this opinion.[/quote]
See below, quoted from an earlier post of yours on this thread:
It’s possible that I misunderstood you. And assuming I didn’t, I wonder in what sense you are using the term
“today’s world” and how today’s world differs from any other time in history (besides cell phones and the Internet, I mean)?
At the risk of repeating myself:
More people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century than any other time in the history of the world - incidentally by leftist, socialist regimes. Into the hundreds of millions, actually (Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, etc, etc.). I believe it is foolish to think, “it can’t happen here”; I would bet that that’s what many of those who were murdered thought too. There are people in the world, and I would say probably in this country, with a lust for power and control beyond anything you or I are capable of even conceiving; most “normal” people don’t (can’t) think this way.
I will cite as specific support an incident during WWII known as the “Warsaw Ghetto Uprising” wherein a small number of Polish Jews kept the Nazis at bay for weeks with a few handguns. There is a good bit of information about it at www.jpfo.org (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, if you’re interested).
Additionally, at the founding, the Militia was defined as “every man under age 45 (I think) who is capable of bearing arms.” This was intended as a line of defense against an outside invasion, as well as a check on our own government. But it really amazes me that the then-government had the humility to ENCOURAGE the citizens to have the power to keep it in check. I cannot imagine any modern politician, on either side of the aisle, having this attitude (well maybe one, Rep. Ron Paul, Republican from Texas, who incidentally was one of the whopping three House votes against the pro-hormone ban - AND he is a Medical Doctor, but I digress). What disturbs me is the degree of dependence we as a society have on the government today, and consequently, the degree to which our lives are increasingly regulated.
I am a firm believer in the doctrine of personal choice.
I see what you’re getting at, but I think it’s an apples-to-oranges analogy. With respect to the gun debate, I am referring to the ability of law-abiding ADULTS to make their own choices about the tools they see fit to possess in the interest of protecting their homes, families, and potentially, country. Here is an interesting statistic: Over 99% of the guns owned in the US will NEVER be used in ANY crime. However, it is a well-proven fact that when gun ownership increases (or is less restricted) crime rates go down. On the other side, Washington, DC has a near-total ban on firearms, and that city has the honor of being the “murder capital” of the nation. Based on this, one could argue that less restrictive gun ownership IS to the “good of the many”.
In your hypothetical situation, you are talking about the responsibility of parents to instill character in their children. Children who are under the care of their parents obviously have limitations on their level of personal choice, and they should! It is, however, up to the parents to decide on how they will develop that character. And if the child grows up to be a deviant, the parents will have to deal with a kid in jail I guess. Similarly, if I hurt someone with, or allow someone to be hurt by, my gun(s), throw MY ass in jail!
guns don’t kill people.
people (with the means and motive to kill people) kill people
→ people with guns kill people
JD430: My source is listed above
(here it is again: Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to
Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67)
I agreed with you before, banning guns because of the way they
look is just plain stupid
(Does the AWB really make a difference? prob not)
However, in a world where there are more than just a few idiots,
dangerous weapons need to be regulated. Do you think that we should have access to all weapons? Why not nuclear bombs and chemical weapons? If you really want to defend yourself, that’s the way, isn’t it. What are you gonna do with a coupla guns against the US military (or any military)?
I don’t necessarily agree with every point of Michael Moore’s, but have you seen Bowling for Columbine? Every gun those two owned was purchased legally at gun shows (I believe with the instant background checks). They bought most, if not all, of their ammo from Kmart/walmart. I don’t think they had any actual automatic weapons (just semi-automatics). In a society that is radically different from the time that our founding fathers wrote the constitution, laws need to be changed and adapted. I do not consider that an affront to our american heritage. Slavery was part of our heritage, as was taking land that wasn’t ours. Do we still do those things? NO. Is that considered an affront to our American heritage? NO.
Bandgeek: Instead of having to arm ourselves to prevent
government attack on our personal rights, how about we start by
doing something else: Not voting for the idiots who keep taking
away our rights (Republicans). There have been more attacks on
personal freedoms and privacy in the last 3 years (since bush
took office and the whole 9-11 scare has gotten americans to
agree with anything he says/does) than there were in the last
- No that is not something I read in a book; it is a
conclusion i made from reading the The New York Times/The
economist for the last 6-7 years.
I don’t know if more guns make us safer. Canadians have plenty
of guns but they have WAY fewer gun deaths than we do (yes thats per capita). The Japanese have no guns and they are even safer. For whatever reason, we have guns and like to use them.
Graph is taken from
http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
Go there for a better legend
I thik RSU may suffer from something called “selective amnesia.”
[quote]neeraj3000 wrote:
Bandgeek: Instead of having to arm ourselves to prevent government attack on our personal rights, how about we start by doing something else: Not voting for the idiots who keep taking
away our rights (Republicans). There have been more attacks on personal freedoms and privacy in the last 3 years (since bush took office and the whole 9-11 scare has gotten americans to agree with anything he says/does) than there were in the last 10. No that is not something I read in a book; it is a conclusion i made from reading the The New York Times/The economist for the last 6-7 years. [/quote]
Um…OK
bandgeek:
I like your latest post…
“Um…OK”
You are funny 
Neeraj,
You kind of skirted around my point about gun injuries/deaths being more likely amoung gun owners and that statistic presents a very distorted view but its really not the topic at hand…
Chemical weapons, explosives, nuclear weapons etc have already been classified as destructive devices, not firearms. There is no individual right to own these items, and the public does not need them.
To throw that up is a red herring…you’re not even talking about firearms anymore.
The slavery thing was also a bullshit cheap shot that Im seeing used more and more. The American heritage I talk about is self-reliance and a belief in the power of the individual…this includes defending himself and others.
You refer to “dangerous” weapons which is a damn silly thing to say…I wouldnt want a weapon that wasnt dangerous. I dont know what your level of firearms education is, but there are certainly legitimate uses for privately owned “assault weapons”…including self-defense.
As far as the private citizenry resisting a military power, I dont have enough time to read you the laundry list of historical cases for that. Just because we are comfortable in our borders now doesnt mean it will always be such.
The American system of government is supposed to trust its people. I probably have more reasons than you to be cynical about some stupidity evident in the general populace. Ive seen shootings, assaults, auto wrecks with mangled bodies…you name it. And guess what…by and large I still trust the core of America to do what is right.
Like I said a long time ago, the AWB is stupid. Let’s talk about this a bit more generally.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
Neeraj,
You kind of skirted around my point about gun injuries/deaths being more likely amoung gun owners and that statistic presents a very distorted view but its really not the topic at hand…
Chemical weapons, explosives, nuclear weapons etc have already been classified as destructive devices, not firearms. There is no individual right to own these items, and the public does not need them.
To throw that up is a red herring…you’re not even talking about firearms anymore.
[/quote]
The second amendment reads:
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.
It does not say “guns,” it says “Arms.” Who said Arms = guns?
What about cannons?
why do you need guns to be self reliant in defending yourself? Do you really think you’re going to be able to defend yourself against the american military w/ a couple of hand guns? If you’re talking about defending yourself from other citizens, learn to do it w/ the most deadly weapons at your disposal, your heands (im referring to martial arts)
i already agreed the awb was stupid
you keep saying this, and i keep responding, do you think a few hand guns is going to stop the american military if we ever have to resist them? I really really don’t think so. Pls don’t bring up the warsaw ghetto. In the end, they lost.
If you by and large trust the core of america to do what is right, why do you need guns? If everybody’s going to do the right thing anyways, what good are guns going to do?
At least we got guns back in DC now.
WHOAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOO
[quote]biltritewave wrote:
At least we got guns back in DC now.
WHOAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOO[/quote]
Did they finally repeal the DC ban? I heard they were trying to. That’s great if they did, but it didn’t make much news…
LOL - learn to defend with the most deadly weapons… your hands!
So now martial artists can stop bullets huh? This isn’t the movies, i’d take a fifteen year old kid with pimples and a 9mm over Bruce Lee or any other matial arts hero you may have.
Illogical
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
Keep in mind that the AWB was during Clinton’s reign. He was a Democrat… imagine that. As a second thought, people were killing each other long before firearms.
Me Solomon Grundy
Gun control is nothing more than a tight shot group.
Me Solomon Grundy
[quote]neeraj3000 wrote:
The second amendment reads: 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. It does not say “guns,” it says “Arms.” Who said Arms = guns? What about cannons?[/quote]
Arms does not necessarily = guns. But, guns ALWAYS = arms. Ergo, guns apply under Amendment II. It’s basic logic: All cars are vehicles, but not all vehicles are cars. So what ABOUT cannons? Give me a reason why I can’t have one. I’m not a criminal and I’m not going to do anything bad with it.
The American revolution comes to mind. England was the greatest naval power in the world at that time. I think we ended up doing OK. Come to think of it, the citizens had cannons…
An excellent point, sir…
Perhaps not, but a few MILLION of them might make a dent.
What exactly is your point? So far I’m reading that you agree that the AWB is absurd, but who the hell needs a gun anyway? Which is it?