Gun Control & 2nd Amendment

Because it's not then, it's now. 2010. It's not a good argument anymore. There are other arguments that are actually relevant. Like: Hey they legally sell the gun, fuck you, I'm buying it. Yeah, but he didn't write it as a facebook status update, so it carries no weight these days. I presented this question before, who would "they" be who is thinking twice?Since the government is "the people," as in regular folk who drive a Ford Focus to work, who is it that's gonna "get you" that you have to defend yourself from?The government is not a dictatorship, and any uprising of a dictator would be crushed by the military. And, if in fact it was, some how (if Hollywood played out into real life), the military who rose up, sorry Hyro, but no one (not even a country) would stand a chance against the US military. Do you think in either case, people owning a gun would have prevented these situations? ...had slaves, considered women second class, considered gays second class, didn't let minorities vote, segregated people...yeah, shit changes. I'm not armed. My parents were never armed. A lot of people I know live unarmed, a lot of people period live unarmed. So times have changed as far as that goes. That it's in the 2nd Amendment, yes, does mean we need to adhere to it. But that it's "ingrained in a culture" is not much of an argument, since so many bad things have been "ingrained in cultures" before. Again, as a right to purchase I agree. You should be allowed to buy them so long as they are manufactured legally and sold in the US, like any other product.But honestly, I think people would fight harder and unite more if you tried to stop making TV's. I know I would kick some culo if someone tried to take my TV. I'd shoot them right in the face. - Oni

He never said it. If you can show me the exact source of this quote I will retract this. But I know you can't. It is not an actual Jefferson quote.Your next Jefferson quote Is actually quite taken out of context.

quote:

---

yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes;

---

Thomas Jefferson, Preamble to a Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge
Fall 1778 Papers 2:526--27You see how I did that? I actually used the original source to show it is accurate.
This has nothing to do with protecting oneself. It has nothing to do with arming oneself. It has to do with universal education.
I am going to tell you what I tell a lot of people here. Be a critical thinker. Research things. Confirm your source.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi, Flyer75. I can't help but think that this sounds like stereotyping.Not all gun deaths are the result of criminals commiting crimes, and not all criminals are (or want to be) criminals before they kill somebody with a gun.Surely all those deaths can be prevented by gun control, right?Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

You've stumbled onto an age old people-will-find-some-other-way-to-kill-each-other argument.My response to that is as long as they're not pointing a gun at me, I don't care if they have knives or swords or flying stars, bring it!With other kinds of weapons, at least I have a chance at defending myself against. With a gun, there's really nothing I can do.

It's always relevant, just like free speech. Yes, but it is only legal in the context of the amendment itself. Whomever may want to subvert your rights, foreign or domestic. The government is always in danger of over-stepping its bounds, freedom is always a step away from being lost, etc. The "it can't happen to me" mindset is something people always say when they develop cancer, or are in the midst of a bear attack, or just lost a child in an auto wreck. It can happen. It would certainly help push negotiations along. A bunch of ragtag, malnourished, not-well-trained resistance groups have been killing thousands of Americans for 2 separate decades (Vietnam & Afghanistan) for two sole reasons.1. They're armed.
2. They're willing to fight for something they believe in

quote:

---

America since the time of its inception has been armed.

---

It doesn't bother me if you don't want exercise a portion of your freedom for whatever reason, but I do. Every now and again I like to take a consensus on how many people stand up for the right and how many people want to take it away. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Stereotyping? Who? Criminals? My point was, no gun law out there will keep someone who really wants to find themselves a gun from obtaining one.Again, from my own experience, we get about 40-50 homicides a year here in my city. That was good for 7th in the nation a few years back....PER CAPITA. Not bad eh? Anyway, of the 50, I'd bet you 47-48 were criminal on criminal crime/homicide. Doper ripped off doper, spurs 4 homicides in a week. Wannabe gang bangers battling it out over "turf", ect. Quite frankly, rarely does the average citizen encounter violent crime, even in the worst of cities. So my point is, these guys that a citizen will encounter if it were to happen, are criminals by nature, they just are....studies show 99% of crime is committed by 6% or less of the population year in and year out, in other words, career criminals. True, but for the sake of the argument of why we should be allowed to arm ourselves, one of the arguments is of course, protection against criminals. No.

I am going to assume that you are right since I cannot find a reputable source. Thank you for pointing that out. I suppose this would be a good addition to Percy's thread. You are right to say that it was not explicitly about guns, but that is not what I was referencing at that particular time. I was referencing how it is considered virtuous to not trust in the government to always be on its best behavior. Besides, it is not a mystery that Thomas Jefferson was very much in favor of an armed citizenry, and that fact is well-sourced.Here is a quote that I doubt you would disagree with its veracity or its context: "God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas JeffersonActual document

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

So you are calling for a rebellion?It is funny how people love to quote things that support them, but don't want to hear anything that goes against their beliefs.Do you think John Adams and George Washington would support this view? Quotes from the 1700's have very little bearing on the society we have today. People like Jefferson had no concept or experience of what became or is now the United States of America. The letter you quote was written before the establishment of the United States of America. It was a period when the States were aligned as a confederation under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Few people were happy with the Articles and there was extreme frustration from many of the founding fathers. At his time Jefferson was one of the most radicalized founding fathers. His views changed drastically in later years.This letter is a prime example of rhetoric. Did he actually believe this at the time? Who knows. But his later actions do not show he truly believed this. Do you know what he was doing 20 years later? He was President of the country which you seem to think he wanted to overthrow. But has nothing to do with guns or arms. It has to do with educating the people.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

And even with free speech, there are better and more relevant arguments by today's standards then when the amendment was conceived. The 2nd amendment has to do with the right to bear arms, NOT the right to own a gun.Shuting down gun manufacturers and banning the productions of guns does not, in any way, violate your right to bear arms. You'll just have to choose a different weapon.Your question was: Should citizens be allowed to bear arms? And I answered, yes. So long as arms are legally sold (whether it is a cross bow, knife, sword, or, as long as they are sold, a gun).That is your right, the right to bear arms, NOT the right to own a gun specifically. Let me then be more specific, because we were discussing the government and you claimed the citizens should bear arms in order to resist.So, what branch of government, or office of government (like the Supreme Court or The House) do you think will be able to organize and rise up to where you, personally, would feel the need to defend yourself? Sure, things can happen, but within reason. The "government" is not a single entity, you know this. It is made up of 1000's of offices, departments, sectors, etc., so it's hard to imagine any kind of "united government movement". I don't believe this response even addressed what I asked. I asked if an armed public, which at the time cubans were armed, would have thwarted the efforts of Castro and Hitler, respectively?I don't believe so, here's why:Hitler fought against army(s) with massive weaponry, he would have wasted very little time taking out armed citizens. The casualties would have been higher. Plus, now average citizens, who bought into the propaganda, would have been shooting Jews in the streets.Castro's uprising was political. He had the support of the people, and control of the army. He too would have wasted no time taking out armed citizens - which he did. Especially with the help of the Russians.What's your reason for thinking it would have? Wait, who says I don't excercise my right to bear arms? We simply use different weapons. I usually carry a knife to every bar or club I perform at. I'm pretty good with it too. So I do excercise my right.Don't get wrapped up in gun ownership being the sole means of bearing arms. I get that, but you're confusing your right to bear arms with your right to buy and own a gun. The two are not the same. Like I explained above, if guns would stop being manufactured that doesn't violate the 2nd amendment, you still have the right to bear arms, just not that particular one because they don't make them anymore.It would be the same as if they stopped making cross bows. How does that violate your right to bear arms?This isn't about guns, it's about a right to arm yourself and defend yourself. That's what we fight to defend, that right, not guns.- Oni

Isn't that called "Election Day"?

No, I just want to have that available to me if the need ever arises. What is that in reference to? Based on what is historically known of them, yes. But he knew history, and history has repeated itself many times since then. Why don't you actually read what I've written throughout this thread instead of misconstruing it. I've worked for the government for 8 years now. I don't want to overthrow anything as there is no need for it. HOWEVER, should the time ever arise when that is necessary, like taking away the 2nd Amendment, I want the resources available to me in the event the government ever goes astray from its historic beliefs. Read what he said. He said that in his experience governments, ever so incrementally, tend to go closer towards tyranny. Whatever the cause of that tyranny may be is irrelevant that it is still tyranny. I happen to agree with him.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

OK, so your contention was that John Adams and George Washington would agree that a revolution every 20 years or so would be a good thing.I doubt any historian that has studied them would agree. Do you have any quotes, or documents to back this assertion?Washington was a reluctant revolutionary. He was motivated by economic factors. Nothing as heady and abstract as liberty democracy. He was a member of the American aristocracy. Yes he was a jumped up member but it was something he sought to attain his whole life. The idea of the armed rabble was but a necessary evil to him.Adams also would be very against it. He was also a reluctant revolutionary that went with revolution when he saw that Great Britain would not concede on anything.This is how he felt about arms.

quote:

---

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

---

John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)This is misquoted often to make it sound completely different, but this is the actual quote.

quote:

---

"Adams was thus mindful of the uses of arms (i.e., legitimate self-defense and militia duty) and concerned about misuse for mob action or anarchy."

---

David Hardy, The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights, 1987Now how about you try a legitimate quote and actual backing to your assertions.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi Vacate, And in both cases there would have been no armed conflict between the (a) white supremacist cult terrorist group (ruby ridge) and (b) the fanatic religious cult terrorist group (waco davidians), if they had not had weapons. In both cases the people resisting the government exercise of law and order used "innocent" people as a shield to "protect" themselves.In both cases the "innocent" people were part of the terrorist organizations, and thus their innocence is debatable.In both those cases the violence that resulted was due to the fact that the people that were in violation of laws were actively using guns to resist the government exercise of law and order. The raid on the Utah Mormons is an example of a relatively similar action of trying to bring normal law and order to a fanatic religious cult organization. No bloodshed. Equally botched government intervention.What this shows, rather than the need for armed citizens, is that when guns are both available and used, innocent people die, but when guns are not used law and order can prevail to the benefit if society, both the society at large and the cult\terrorist\fanatic groups as well. ie - availability of guns to gun happy groups made the situations worse, not better.

---

[rant]Government can be changed more effectively, and more consistently with the principles of the constitution and the declaration of independence, and the intent of the founding fathers, by the process of education of the general people, and by the evolution of government to recognize the rights of people in a fair, just and equitable manner.What the The Bill of Rights actually says:

quote:

---

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.

---

The National Guard units run by the states fulfill this requirement, forming as they do form a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" (note meaning of "State" as a government body differs from the meaning of "states" as a subcategory here).An ad hoc group of gun happy people does not necessarily enhance the "security of a free State" so much as put guns in the hands of gun happy people in a group that can be engaged in any activity, including insurrections and terrorist operations.If find it rather difficult to imagine that the founding fathers intended that the right to bear arms would apply to terrorist groups or to cult\terrorist\fanatic organizations. Especially as the constitution speaks to how the militias are to be run, organized, equipped, trained and funded (see below), while specifically allowing for (amendment 1) "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Note also how this is interpretation of the National Guard units as the militia is in accord with amendment 5:

quote:

---

Amendment V

​

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

In this case we have the National Guard employed on behalf of the nation "in actual service in time of War" being exempted from prosecution under normal laws (say for murder) while they are engaged in war, and that they are technically not part of the national "land or naval forces" (or national air forces etc not envisaged at the time of the constitution), where I would find any attempt by any one of the cult\terrorist\fanatic "militia" organizations to claim immunity from prosecution under federal laws for engaging in acts like Ruby Ridge and the Davidian Compound to be ridiculously under supported.Notice that Amendment 5 also talks about the service of the militias to provide "service in time of ... public danger" and that this would include their use for relief during catastrophes like hurricanes and earth quakes, a service that is specifically not requested of the armed services under the constitution.This is what the U.S. Constitution says about the armed forces and the militias:

quote:

---

Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

​

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

​

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

​

To provide and maintain a Navy;

​

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

​

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

​

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

​

Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

​

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

---

Note that these are the only places where a militia is mentioned in the constitution or amendments and that the "Militia of the several States" are clearly units run by the states (ie - the National Guard), and that "organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia" are responsibilities for congress while the "Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia" are reserved for the States, so this clearly does not apply to any ad hoc organizations of gun happy citizens.Note that one of the constitutional duties of the Militia is to suppress Insurrections ... (like Ruby Ridge & Waco?) ...An ad hoc group of people with guns does not make a "well regulated Militia ... necessary to the security of a free State" as there are several other criteria that such groups must meet.Note that the armed services are, by traditional interpretations, restricted from operating within the US, even for things like emergency relief, unless specifically invited by the government of the state. Nor do the various state National Guard units operate outside their respective states without special invitation in times of emergencies.Now, I can go on about how I feel the National Guards are used, and how they should be used, and the role of police vs national authorities (ATF, FBI, etc) in dealing with social problems below the levels of "Insurrections and ... Invasions" but that would easily double the length of this post ...[/rant]Enjoy.

---

No, not every 20 years to the date, Theo. Let's be realistic. That is hyperbole. The greater question (and obviously what I thought you were inquiring about) is if they would they support revolution? Yes, obviously, since they did. Yes, and as best I can tell it still is a necessary evil. I agree that Washington was burdened by the thought of having to fight a war, particularly with what was his own countrymen, but he still fought in the highest capacity possible.And what exactly is your point anyhow? We have the 2nd Amendment. That George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson signed, and thereby endorsed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, means that they agreed. So what exactly is your point?

quote:

---

:To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

---

Did you not see where he said except in private self-defense? The 2nd Amendment calls for two things: That an organized militia be created and that the right of the People to bear arms will not be infringed. That he endorsed the 2nd Amendment, that he was explicit in having private citizens armed, means that he is in favor of it.What exactly is the point you are making? Is this your way of disapproving with the 2nd Amendment? Do you think it is antiquated and needs to be changed? What are you personally seeking? I did, Theo. I even posted the original document along with it. And for the first two quotes you pointed out, I conceded and even thanked you for pointing the error out. You didn't even acknowledge it. So please explain why you are being so scornful. You against the 1st Amendment too?

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

You stated(if you want me to go back to the original message I will) that Adams and Washington would have supported Jeffersons statement about a revolution every 20 years.You are now backpedaling and misrepresenting my response. I did not say anything about them being against the tight to bear arms. I was showing that your assertion was a load of crock.I presented an argument showing why it was crock. Now you claim you didn't mean what you said? Maybe you should think before you hit that submit button.Or are you saying Adams and Washington thought the US should have a revolution in some indeterminate time in the future/I'd love to see your sources on this. Maybe you should just admit it is something you pulled out of your ass? Classic Hyro. When caught throwing bs around you change the argument. Deflect and attack the person you are debating with. Poor form, poor form.All I was doing was showing that it was a statement with no evidence to back it. You care to back your statements about Adams and Washington or not?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts