The 2nd Amendment

[CBWx2]

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

Dammit, what an excellent read. Long, but raises all of the points I have tried to hammer home, and more,  but in a much better and comprehensive mannner.

CBW, read this. I doubt it will change your mind on much, but it may at least permit you to understand much of what I have been trying to say over the last few days.. If nothing else, know you enemy

I read it, or rather, I skimmed through the finer points. Not anything new or compelling about it. As you said, spartan, it pretty much echos the exact same points that many of you have been making. His position still relies on the unsubstantiated notion that weapons bans have no effect on anything. While I understand the sentiment, I prefer to rely on actual statistics of other countries that have implemented them with great success. It's a well thought out piece, but I'm afraid it didn't change my mind at all, as you suspected.

[CBWx2]

I absolutely laugh at the people here who think controlling guns is going to fix this issue.

With our country being over 300 million strong, don't you think its pretty ambitious to believe that you can take away every single gun?

There's that "people are going to do it anyway" argument. So creating a new law is only worthwhile if it can be proven beforehand that it will have a 100% success rate of deterrence? I'd be interested in seeing an example of any current law that has proven to be that successful.

[Dolorous Jason]

I absolutely laugh at the people here who think controlling guns is going to fix this issue.

With our country being over 300 million strong, don't you think its pretty ambitious to believe that you can take away every single gun?

There's that "people are going to do it anyway" argument. So creating a new law is only worthwhile if it can be proven beforehand that it will have a 100% success rate of deterrence? I'd be interested in seeing an example of any current law that has proven to be that successful.

Laws are meant to protect our liberties from the encroachment of others . They are not meant to protect us from ourselves . That's when you see the success rate REALLY start to drop. That's why laws that protect things like freedom of speech work out fairly well , and laws like Prohibition were a huge failure.

 One punishes an actual crime , the other tries to prevent a future crime by making a criminal of a law abiding citizen who hasn't yet actually done anything to harm another .

In a natural state , no true crime has been commited by the act of buying a gun. A crime is only commited after you use that gun to aggress on another innocent person - and that is when the law is needed. I realize this is a horribly foriegn concept to a leftist mind like CBW , who has no faith in humanity and thinks we all need a nanny to hold our hands through life 24/7 , so that nothing bad will ever happen to anyone.

Not only is it fantasy land to think you will protect all people from themselves , but it's oppressive to the rest of us in the process.


...now spin , boy. Spin...

[Biggs3535]

George Washington
October 31, 1786
Letter to Henry Lee regarding a proper response to Shays' rebellion:

"You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no Government.  Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once. Under these impressions, my humble opinion is, that there is a call for decision. Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once. If this is inadequate, all will be convinced that the superstructure is bad, or wants support. To be more exposed in the eyes of the world, and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible. To delay one or the other of these, is to exasperate on the one hand, or to give confidence on the other, and will add to their numbers; for, like snow-balls, such bodies increase by every movement, unless there is something in the way to obstruct and crumble them before the weight is too great and irresistible.

These are my sentiments. Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: if defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

It would appear as though George Washington viewed rebellion as an affront to the constitution, not supported by it. Someone should tell him that Delirious Jason believes he's wrong, and has a quote from him to prove it.

What does Washington's letter have to do with the Second?

Nothing at all, except for the inconvenient fact that had he believed the 2nd amendment to have provided these men with the constitutional right to rebel against the government, he probably wouldn't have written it.

That would have been difficult for Washington to do, considering the 2nd Amendment didn't exist at the time when he wrote this letter.

[Chief Joseph]

 " Now were the union ever to be dissolved, and something else were to take it's place, then sure, I suppose that he'd be all up for it. But that's not what we are talking about here, is it chief?"

No chance whatsoever that the union becomes corrupted from the inside, is there, naive one?

[spartan]

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

Dammit, what an excellent read. Long, but raises all of the points I have tried to hammer home, and more,  but in a much better and comprehensive mannner.

CBW, read this. I doubt it will change your mind on much, but it may at least permit you to understand much of what I have been trying to say over the last few days.. If nothing else, know you enemy

I read it, or rather, I skimmed through the finer points. Not anything new or compelling about it. As you said, spartan, it pretty much echos the exact same points that many of you have been making. His position still relies on the unsubstantiated notion that weapons bans have no effect on anything. While I understand the sentiment, I prefer to rely on actual statistics of other countries that have implemented them with great success. It's a well thought out piece, but I'm afraid it didn't change my mind at all, as you suspected.

Is Columbine substanitve enough for you?

[Dolorous Jason]

George Washington
October 31, 1786
Letter to Henry Lee regarding a proper response to Shays' rebellion:

"You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no Government.  Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once. Under these impressions, my humble opinion is, that there is a call for decision. Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once. If this is inadequate, all will be convinced that the superstructure is bad, or wants support. To be more exposed in the eyes of the world, and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible. To delay one or the other of these, is to exasperate on the one hand, or to give confidence on the other, and will add to their numbers; for, like snow-balls, such bodies increase by every movement, unless there is something in the way to obstruct and crumble them before the weight is too great and irresistible.

These are my sentiments. Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: if defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

It would appear as though George Washington viewed rebellion as an affront to the constitution, not supported by it. Someone should tell him that Delirious Jason believes he's wrong, and has a quote from him to prove it.

What does Washington's letter have to do with the Second?

Nothing at all, except for the inconvenient fact that had he believed the 2nd amendment to have provided these men with the constitutional right to rebel against the government, he probably wouldn't have written it.

That would have been difficult for Washington to do, considering the 2nd Amendment didn't exist at the time when he wrote this letter.

LOL

Hey CBW ,

[dbucfan]

George Washington
October 31, 1786
Letter to Henry Lee regarding a proper response to Shays' rebellion:

"You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no Government.  Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once. Under these impressions, my humble opinion is, that there is a call for decision. Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once. If this is inadequate, all will be convinced that the superstructure is bad, or wants support. To be more exposed in the eyes of the world, and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible. To delay one or the other of these, is to exasperate on the one hand, or to give confidence on the other, and will add to their numbers; for, like snow-balls, such bodies increase by every movement, unless there is something in the way to obstruct and crumble them before the weight is too great and irresistible.

These are my sentiments. Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: if defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

It would appear as though George Washington viewed rebellion as an affront to the constitution, not supported by it. Someone should tell him that Delirious Jason believes he's wrong, and has a quote from him to prove it.

What does Washington's letter have to do with the Second?

Nothing at all, except for the inconvenient fact that had he believed the 2nd amendment to have provided these men with the constitutional right to rebel against the government, he probably wouldn't have written it.

That would have been difficult for Washington to do, considering the 2nd Amendment didn't exist at the time when he wrote this letter.

But if it had existed that's what he would have thought.    

[mwk]

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

Dammit, what an excellent read. Long, but raises all of the points I have tried to hammer home, and more,  but in a much better and comprehensive mannner.

CBW, read this. I doubt it will change your mind on much, but it may at least permit you to understand much of what I have been trying to say over the last few days.. If nothing else, know you enemy

I read it, or rather, I skimmed through the finer points. Not anything new or compelling about it. As you said, spartan, it pretty much echos the exact same points that many of you have been making. His position still relies on the unsubstantiated notion that weapons bans have no effect on anything. While I understand the sentiment, I prefer to rely on actual statistics of other countries that have implemented them with great success. It's a well thought out piece, but I'm afraid it didn't change my mind at all, as you suspected.

Here you go CBWx2. You might like it better. It has pictures! 

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/12/so-did-piers-morgan-and-christiane.html

mwk

[Durango 95]

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

Dammit, what an excellent read. Long, but raises all of the points I have tried to hammer home, and more,  but in a much better and comprehensive mannner.

CBW, read this. I doubt it will change your mind on much, but it may at least permit you to understand much of what I have been trying to say over the last few days.. If nothing else, know you enemy

I read it, or rather, I skimmed through the finer points. Not anything new or compelling about it. As you said, spartan, it pretty much echos the exact same points that many of you have been making. His position still relies on the unsubstantiated notion that weapons bans have no effect on anything. While I understand the sentiment, I prefer to rely on actual statistics of other countries that have implemented them with great success. It's a well thought out piece, but I'm afraid it didn't change my mind at all, as you suspected.

There are..“None so blind as those that will not see.”

[olafberserker]

you mean cbw is talking out of his rear again, we should debate who said he does nothing, but "spin" and talk in circles all the time first ...... 


one thing is for sure, you are the king of circle jerks .....

[Bayfisher]

http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2012/07/26/the-worlds-first-3d-printed-gun-is-a-terrifying-thing/

[dalbuc]

I read it, or rather, I skimmed through the finer points. Not anything new or compelling about it. As you said, spartan, it pretty much echos the exact same points that many of you have been making. His position still relies on the unsubstantiated notion that weapons bans have no effect on anything. While I understand the sentiment, I prefer to rely on actual statistics of other countries that have implemented them with great success. It's a well thought out piece, but I'm afraid it didn't change my mind at all, as you suspected.

The main difference you have when dealing with other countries is that quite honestly no other country ever had an armed population like the USA. You could ban guns because functionally those states had always outlawed them at least in the hands of the majority of the population. Gun bans here would do really nothing - see the 500 dead people mostly by guns in Chicago where there are wildly over the top anti-gun laws.

Now the fact that the law won't change anything doesn't mean much bin terms of good or bad of the law just that even if we magically outlawed anyone getting anything other than a musket in 2013 you'd still have people being killed by semi-automatic weapons in 2113.

[mwk]

Here is some interesting stats for violent crime:



mwk

[Durango 95]

Interesting video clip. The UK crime stats was something I mentioned earlier in the discussion (probably in the other thread) but was well worth repeating.

For some this will be eye-opening. Harvard University did a study on banning firearms and it's relation to Reducing Murder & Suicide. Essentially it contradicts just about every assertion that's been made by the Gun Control Brothers, Vin & CBW.  I'm not sure that either of them will read the conclusions since they are both motivated by emotion as they frantically try and set their "facts" around their predetermined conclusions.  But it is well worth 5-10 minutes for any of us to at least look it over.

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE 
MURDER AND SUICIDE?
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf