So, why are guns necessary?

[a completely inoffensive name]

You forgot the 3rd, GC. We gotta take that back as well.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Judging by the age breakdown, it's actually older folks starving.

Than it is not a matter of personal stupidity, but collective lack of responsibility. An easily fixable problem, unlike the gun issue which is what people seem determined to focus on.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Judging by the age breakdown, it's actually older folks starving.

But the hunger/malnutrition isn't just limited to the elderly, though -- just that the elderly are relatively unprotected from the worst consequences. For example school kids still get that one school meal every school day, which provides some relief...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Than it is not a matter of personal stupidity, but collective lack of responsibility. An easily fixable problem, unlike the gun issue which is what people seem determined to focus on.

Until you actually try to. At which point it is unfixable, 'cause "free market capitalism rules OK".

[Montmorency]

Now if plasma blasters are harder to get then, the number of guns should decrease "naturally".

That would be a good point, except:

1. It assume such weapons are or will be technologically viable as small-arms.
2. It assumes modern civilization will survive up to the point where such weapons will exist.
3. It assumes that such weapons will render traditional solid-projectile guns obsolete.
4. It assumes that such weapons will ever be released to the public.
5. It assumes the character of modern civilization will remain almost unchanged up to that point.

As it turns out, it's a very bad idea to plan 300 years ahead unless you have a One World Government.

[drone]

But the hunger/malnutrition isn't just limited to the elderly, though -- just that the elderly are relatively unprotected from the worst consequences. For example school kids still get that one school meal every school day, which provides some relief...

True, the CDC report only reports deaths. The age ranges that spike on malnutrition are 70+, maybe malnutrition is getting credit when loss of appetite is a symptom of another disease.

[Husar]

That would be a good point, except:

1. It assume such weapons are or will be technologically viable as small-arms.
2. It assumes modern civilization will survive up to the point where such weapons will exist.
3. It assumes that such weapons will render traditional solid-projectile guns obsolete.
4. It assumes that such weapons will ever be released to the public.
5. It assumes the character of modern civilization will remain almost unchanged up to that point.

As it turns out, it's a very bad idea to plan 300 years ahead unless you have a One World Government.

Those would be good points, except:

1. They assume I meant plasma blaster literally.
2. They assume I meant 300 years literally.
3. They assume that muskets will actually last exactly another 300 years.
4. They assume that my assumptions are actually wrong.
5. They assume that a One World Government could not dissolve within a timespan of 300 years.

As it turns out, it's not a good idea to make random assumptions about someone else's post unless you have a forum where a hive mind discusses with itself.

[Montmorency]

I meant plasma blaster literally.

"Such weapons" deals with that nicely.

2. They assume I meant 300 years literally.

Even 50 years fits.

They assume that muskets will actually last exactly another 300 years.

So, no projectile weapons whatsoever? Maybe we will return to bow and arrow? See #5.

They assume that my assumptions are actually wrong.

I assert this.

They assume that a One World Government could not dissolve within a timespan of 300 years.

Not at all. It merely assumes that One World Governments would deal better with very-long-term goals than 200 opposed and constantly-fluctuating governments.

it's not a good idea to make random assumptions about someone else's post

1. If no one assumed anything about anyone else, guess what: there would be no communication between humans!

2. You acknowledged that these were indeed your assumptions.

[spankythehippo]

I'd rather live in the third world and be allowed to protect myself than live in a first world country that's gone that soft.

Wut. If you want to protect yourself, why don't you wear Kevlar instead of carrying a weapon? If someone truly wanted to kill you, they wouldn't make it obvious. So they might shoot you in the back. Would a gun save you in that circumstance? Since when is a weapon a form of protection? Instead of trying to fix a societal problem (which I understand will be hard to fix), America just tackles it with brute force.

Common people that act "hard" are often aggressive. Aggression is a result of lack of self-control. I'd rather live in a society where people have self-control. I'd rather live in a society where men weren't obliged to appear tough, just for the sake of not going soft. As it turns out, men that try to appear masculine to impress others are one of the most obnoxious people on the planet. People can still be masculine without guns. Bruce Lee is tough. A gun-crazy redneck is not.

[Xiahou]

Yes, and the rules defining these minimums were called ... regulations. Sorry, man, but calling your re-definition a "stretch" is an insult to elastic.

Frankly, if you substitute "equipped" for "regulated" in the amendment, it makes alot more sense.

How does the uninfringeable right to bear arms help to constitute a well regulated militia? However, if you take it to mean a well equipped militia- the dependent clause makes sense.

It's an interesting thought- but largely irrelevant since it is a dependent clause.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Aggression is not inherently bad. For every emotion there is a right time, with a right place, directed towards the right person, to a right degree.

If the US lacks self control than I call the UK meek for having garbage bins to stash those dangerous knives away.

[Papewaio]

You're not American, so you don't get an opinion.

That said, its not about anything so crass. Guns are the basic unit of self defense in the world. I am not willing to cede that right to the state. I think those that are, or those that already have, are coming from an alien mindset that I do not understand and cannot relate to.

*I mean, you can hypothesize about situational scenarios all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you lose any kind of initiative when you give up the right to meaningful force. You are totally submitting to the will of the state, and putting your faith in the system. I don't like my state enough or have enough faith in my system to do any such thing.

As a former tanker don't you think that the force ratio is asymmetric? Aren't you at some level putting faith in the military to be on your side?

Possibly the best defence against a state actor would be learning how to wage asymmetric warfare. So should IEDs be part of the right to bear arms.

[Montmorency]

So should IEDs be part of the right to bear arms.

The state knows what it's doing when it moves to restrict or eliminate private drone-'hobbyism'.

In a few years, your 3D-printed guns and AR-whatevers will be small-fry in the face of autonomous drone-hordes firing heat-seeking bullets.

[Papewaio]

An armed people have to be taken seriously. I'm sure our rights would be even more eroded if the people had no guns.

I agree wih most of what you have written, however I do not believe this section nor do I think it is factual accurate.

There are plenty of countries with lots of firearms that are less free and plenty more with less firearms that are more so.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Every time that I hear things like "JP Morgan Chase has paid 920 million as a fine for financial irregularities" followed by "this represents 14 days of profit for the multinational" I recognize how important owning firearms is. Every time Walmart opens in an area and has a downward impact on wages in that area, I recognize how important owning firearms is.

The right to bear arms is the recognition that there is a gravitational pull for power to coalesce and become greater power, and for that power to view your rights jealously. If the peaceful, progressive compact that we have with established interests is ever broken - woe to those who believe that they live as powerful mortals in a world where a 3.38 Lapua Magnum cannot punch through the steel on their helicopter or that all of the gold in the world can protect them from mobs no longer armed with pitchforks, but rather AR-15's and tannerite.

I support the right to bear arms for the same reasons as Jefferson, John Brown, George Orwell. Your government seeks to protect entrenched interests and keep the populace at bay. The only ones who will protect the interests of the everyman are the everymen. There is danger implied in the recognition of this right, akin to the danger implied by a police force or standing army.

[Husar]

So, no projectile weapons whatsoever? Maybe we will return to bow and arrow? See #5.

Is a ball of plasma not a projectile? What about an arrow makes it not a projectile?

I assert this.

And that is wrong.

Not at all. It merely assumes that One World Governments would deal better with very-long-term goals than 200 opposed and constantly-fluctuating governments.

That is correct. However, you do not have 200 opposed and constantly-fluctuating governments within the USA, yet you seem to think long-term planning would be a bad idea for the USA?

1. If no one assumed anything about anyone else, guess what: there would be no communication between humans!

Sounds good.

2. You acknowledged that these were indeed your assumptions.

You found out my secret, oh noes!

[PanzerJaeger]

FWIW, the AR-15 ID is reported to have come from a local Fox affiliate, which was grabbing info off police scanners and putting it out without secondary (confirming) sources. Bad reporting. Not a "blatant effort by select media to" blah blah blah.

Rather, it was cops on the radio saying it was an AR-15, and a local news station repeating it without confirming.

Also, I'd be cautious about using the term "sheeple." It's kind of a marker for conspiracy nuts. As in, it's one of their go-to words. You don't want to throw discredit on an argument through a simple word choice.

-edit-

Didn't follow this story closely, but it appears "senior law enforcement officials" were also announcing the AR-15 as a weapon. So ... yeah. Media conspiracy is kinda off the table as a talking point. Sorry. "Despite statements on Monday from senior law enforcement officials — which were widely reported in the news media, including in The New York Times — that an AR-15 had been found at the scene, no such gun has been found. The authorities say they do not believe the gunman used one."

Humble pie isn't any better with milk. My mistake and thank you for the correction. With media outlets jumping to post things like this [http://www.mediaite.com/online/ny-da...ooting-cover/], it's hard not to believe an agenda is being driven in the face of facts and rationality.

[Lemur]

Frankly, if you substitute "equipped" for "regulated" in the amendment, it makes alot more sense.

Only if you have a preconceived notion of what you want the Second Amendment to mean.

If you read the language for what it is, rather than what you think it ought to mean, it's pretty clear. "Well-regulated" means under some sort of organization and control, rather than a bunch of angry dudes in a mob. The founders' intent is pretty clear in this case. They want the state protected, and they want it done by a "well-regulated militia," as opposed to a disorganized bunch of shooters. (And it's clear from letters and speeches of the time that the founders were leery about having a standing army, so the "well regulated militia" was clearly being posited as an alternative to a permanent military force.)

"The distinction between a well regulated Army, and a Mob, is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behaviour of the latter."—George Washington, August 25, 1776

"The irregular and disjointed State of the Militia of this Province, makes it necessary for me to inform you... your first object should be a well regulated Militia Law."—George Washington, January 24, 1777

"The devising and establishing of a well regulated militia, would be a genuine source of legislative honor... carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and thus providing, in the language of the constitution, for calling them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."—George Washington, Address to Congress, November 19, 1794

[Goofball]

An armed people have to be taken seriously. I'm sure our rights would be even more eroded if the people had no guns.

That is the biggest fallacy I have ever heard. Do you think politicians in any first world, democratic nation ever shy away from a decision because they are afraid of the populace shooting them?

The only reason they ever shy away from a decision is if they think it will prevent them from getting reelected.

Case in point: American politicians don't shy away from gun control because they think somebody will kill them. They shy away from it because when they vote for it the NRA shows up in their district, outspends them on television, and gets them booted out of office. Sometimes they don't even wait for the nest election, they just spend enough to recall their ass.

[rvg]

Case in point: American politicians don't shy away from gun control because they think somebody will kill them. They shy away from it because when they vote for it the NRA shows up in their district, outspends them on television, and gets them booted out of office. Sometimes they don't even wait for the nest election, they just spend enough to recall their ass.

It's a thing of beauty. When those two clowns in CO got their asses recalled I was one happy camper. Don't mess with our guns.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I mean, if we are going to be honest. There was a time when politicians were right to be afraid of being shot. The US has not had a lack of important politicians being shot at.

RIP in peace McKinley

[Husar]

It's a thing of beauty. When those two clowns in CO got their asses recalled I was one happy camper. Don't mess with our guns.

The problem is that guns are apparently the only topic that ruins political careers in this way. It's apparently easier to get away with mass murder, murder, corruption, ruining the country and what not than with voting to introduce even the smallest bit of gun legislation.
And with these priorities you wonder why your country is not doing well in certain areas such as schools...

[rvg]

And with these priorities you wonder why your country is not doing well in certain areas such as schools...

Public schools in prosperous counties do quite well. My daughter goes to a public school, it's one of the best schools in the state.

[Montmorency]

[QUOTE[Husar]Is a ball of plasma not a projectile? What about an arrow makes it not a projectile?[/QUOTE]

Specifically: "muskets" > nothing > still no 'sci-fi' pistols > still nothing? > return to prehistoric projectile-weapons

Yes, the idea is that this makes no sense.

And that is wrong.

It's wrong 'cause it's wrong, right?

That is correct. However, you do not have 200 opposed and constantly-fluctuating governments within the USA, yet you seem to think long-term planning would be a bad idea for the USA?

To be more precise, 200 national governments. With the current state-federal structure, and still suspended within an international system, there might as well be no difference though, compared to the potential stability of Policy in a World-State.

[Goofball]

It's a thing of beauty. When those two clowns in CO got their asses recalled I was one happy camper. Don't mess with our guns.

Except "those clowns" were not trying to take anyone's guns away. The law they voted for only limited the size of magazines and implemented background checks for gun sales. The only people in the country that are "harmed" by this law is gun manufacturers and retailers, as they would lose a little bit of business by no longer being able to sell to criminals or mental cases. So the NRA stepped in and managed to whip up such a frenzy that enough single issue voters recalled them, regardless of the rest of their political platforms.

I can't believe you can't see this. The NRA doesn't do this kind of thing because they are such patriotic defenders of liberty, they do it because they want to sell as many guns and make as much money as possible.

[Goofball]

Whatever. The NRA didn't donate the most money in Colorado, the mayor of New York did. To the other side. Backlash is a bitch.

Actually, no, it was about even. Straight from Fox News, in case you are worring about anti-gun bias:"The recall drew national attention and became a proxy fight between gun control and gun rights forces. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an advocate for stricter gun laws with his group Mayor's Against Illegal Guns, contributed around $350,000 to the two Democrats. The NRA spent roughly the same amount opposing them."http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/14/gun-control-advocates-say-colorado-recall-stifling-effort-in-congress/

Its a RIGHT! The same would be expected to happen if a politician came out and tried to repeal free speech. When the people repeatedly demonstrate that they don't want one of their RIGHTS taken away, the government should listen. The more politicians keep trying to beat this dead horse instead of doing, as you suggest, other meaningful things the bigger the backlash will be.

I don't know abou that reasoning. Americans don't seem to care quite as much about having their emails monitored by the guv'ment.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Only if you have a preconceived notion of what you want the Second Amendment to mean.

If you read the language for what it is, rather than what you think it ought to mean, it's pretty clear. "Well-regulated" means under some sort of organization and control, rather than a bunch of angry dudes in a mob. The founders' intent is pretty clear in this case. They want the state protected, and they want it done by a "well-regulated militia," as opposed to a disorganized bunch of shooters. (And it's clear from letters and speeches of the time that the founders were leery about having a standing army, so the "well regulated militia" was clearly being posited as an alternative to a permanent military force.)

"The distinction between a well regulated Army, and a Mob, is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behaviour of the latter."—George Washington, August 25, 1776

"The irregular and disjointed State of the Militia of this Province, makes it necessary for me to inform you... your first object should be a well regulated Militia Law."—George Washington, January 24, 1777

"The devising and establishing of a well regulated militia, would be a genuine source of legislative honor... carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and thus providing, in the language of the constitution, for calling them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."—George Washington, Address to Congress, November 19, 1794

Ok, point made - yes, if you read the prefatory clause as the sole reason for the right to keep and bear arms, a well regulated (managed and outfitted) militia is the reason for the amendment. This is not the way we or most, read the amendment. Your interpretation would suggest that personal self defense, hunting, etc. has absolutely nothing to do with our protected right, but rather that our right is solely dictated by the desires of the government for it's own security. In fact, hunters have no right to their firearms, neither do individuals in high crime areas? No one but the National Guard and Police have a "right" to firearms, and even then their ability to arm themselves would be regulated solely by what the government believes is best to promote "the security of the State"?

This is absurd historically and even more absurd when faced with the reality of American expectations. You are suggesting that a commonly believed, used, and valued right is merely a figment of our imaginations and it was only a glitch that allowed Americans to keep their guns after the Revolution/early years had ended.

If you believe that the rationale that you are describing would have caused the Supreme court to "divine" the right to an abortion and other open ended verdicts from the oracle, the you need to go back to school. The rights which we had no idea that we had, few had ever asked for, and where no protections had ever existed are "self-evident and inalienable" while those which are protected in code, commonly held and protected nearly everywhere are "an illusion". Your understanding is that the 2nd amendment forces the government to have an army and the right of the people stuff is, what the "succeeding clause" of 2A?. Congrats on your decimating and progressive judicial argument.


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a separate and individual right. It is is a self-sustained right, unconstrained by merely one of it's myriad purposes. The most important function is to secure a FREE state, not just A state. It is useful for many other things and is a right of the people, not to be infringed by any government.
There are purposes behind the right to speak freely, but you wouldn't make the argument that we may only speak freely in areas that keep government honest, would you? The prefatory clause is a statement of fact, not a qualifier for the right.

Additionally, rights not enumerated to the 3 branches are reserved to the State or to the People. There is no enumeration, the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is specifically protected constitutionally from "infringement", the right is "incorporated" to the States, protecting the States from "infringements" - we are good. Start lobbying for another amendment if it bothers you that badly, or just focus on innocuous background checks and permitting -which may "abridge", but do not "infringe" on our rights.

[Montmorency]

Wow, that was one circular post there, Dawg.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wow, that was one circular post there, Dawg.

In what way?

EDIT: did I fix it?

[Montmorency]

Imagine four statements, A, B, C, and D.

C follows from A.

D follows from B.

You are arguing that because some E never had any relevance to B and D that A > C is canceled.

That makes no sense to me.