The 2nd Amendment

[spartan]

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

"There is no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, resulting in more or less the same amount of death. Elementary as this point is, proponents of the more guns equal more death mantra seem oblivious to it "

Isn't that what I have been trying to say for the last 3 or 4 days?

[spartan]

I am half way through the report and it is a 'bit' longer than a 5-10 minute read, but I do see a pattern. It substantiates for the most part what has been said, but it does strike me that perhaps the FBI background check needs to be supplemented with a local background check as well; or perhaps augmented with a local check.

The one thing that is in the air for me is the 'gunshow loophole.' There is no loop hole for anyone with any common sense, it is simply the private sale of firearms from one citizen to another. That there is a problem. Just how far do we regulate or, simply put, ban that? I am against it in principle but if 90% of murders with firearms are committed by folks with a criminal record, there is an argument for it. It won't eliminate 'mass shootings' of course, but as I stated before, that will require a repeal of the 2nd.

[VinBucFan]

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

"There is no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, resulting in more or less the same amount of death. Elementary as this point is, proponents of the more guns equal more death mantra seem oblivious to it "

Isn't that what I have been trying to say for the last 3 or 4 days?

Two hilarious things about these comments:

1. Talking about me when I am not even involved in the conversation

2. watching pro-gun people argue against the reduction of the number of guns in society by typing (presumably with a straight face)  "people will just kill themselves and other by other means anyway". 

ROFLMAO, if nothing else shows how weak the argument is for having millions of guns in society it is watching two gun advocates post (presumably without laughing) that we shouldn't take one thing that ADMITTEDLY results in a lot of deaths out of society because people will just die by other means.  Man . . . funny stuff. People should not wear seat belts because they will just get killed crossing the street. We should not search for a cure for cancer because people will just die of another disease . . . . great arguments . . . .

[dbucfan]

You know what is really funny, hilarious if you will.  It is that some folks just feel they own the moral high ground by declaration and from that location they can insult the other side into agreement because they feel they own all the best information.   

[Dolorous Jason]

Can someone please just shoot Vinbuc already ?

[spartan]

In 2010 33,000 committed suicide. 8.5k of them by hanging. Last year, 11.5k people were murdered using a firearm. Therefore, rope is almost as lethal as a gun. Let's ban rope.

32k died in car crashes last year. Lets ban motor vehicles. If we can't, let's ban high capacity coaches. Each time one of them crashes a lot more people die than if it was simply a 5, 6 or 7 seater. If we didn't squeeze so many folks into a single coach, not so many people will die. Just yesterday a high capacity coach crashed killing 9 people and injuring 38 others in Oregon. How long before these death machines are taken off the highways!

[CBWx2]

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.

Perhaps you're right. He opposed open rebellion against the Union in October of 1786, but then was all for it as of February of 1787.

OOOOORRRRRRR...perhaps the language written into the 2nd amendment and Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution directly calling for the formation and standardization of militias to put down armed insurrections came to be because of the fact that one had just occurred.

Nah, couldn't be. Your suggestion sounds so much more logical...

And Delirious, I'd try a bit harder to not post statements by the founders that they never even said before I'd start telling anyone to suck it. What a buffoon...

[spartan]

Perhaps you're right. He opposed open rebellion against the Union in October of 1786, but then was all for it as of February of 1787.

OOOOORRRRRRR...perhaps the language written into the 2nd amendment and Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution directly calling for the formation and standardization of militias to put down armed insurrections came to be because of the fact that one had just occurred.

Nah, couldn't be. Your suggestion sounds so much more logical...

And Delirious, I'd try a bit harder to not post statements by the founders that they never even said before I'd start telling anyone to suck it. What a buffoon...

OOOOORRRRRRR........ he evolved?

[spartan]

In other news:

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-each-year-rifles

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618. And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.

Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.


Ban hands, feet and hammers!!!

[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.

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.

Yes, because no one would ever dare attempt to limit free speech... 
 
I'd venture to guess attempts by various persons or organizations to limit free speech have likely tripled or quadrupled, hell more than sextupled the number of people who broke prohibition laws, so if your analysis on the success of a law is in direct correlation to the number of people who attempt to break it, as per usual, your example is a faulty one.

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 .

What is an actual crime? Something that is against the law? Like, perhaps the production, transportation, and distribution of alcohol during prohibition? Were those engaging in that activity law abiding citizens that otherwise would not have broken any laws? Here's where you show your ignorance. Prohibition made those things illegal. It never made purchasing or consuming alcohol illegal. The people who broke prohibition laws were the same people who broke the law prior to prohibition, organized crime. When prohibition was lifted, those same individuals found other laws to break. The consumption of alcohol, which is the activity that otherwise law abiding citizens engaged in, was not illegal during prohibition, which is one of the major reasons it failed so miserably.

The propensity of an individual to break the law doesn't lie in whether or not it will only affect himself or others, it lies in the consequences of breaking such a law. That's why more people litter and jaywalk in our society than sell drugs or rob banks. The flaw with prohibition is that it only targeted the supply of the illegal substance rather than the demand. If drug abuse or alcohol abuse penalties were the same in the US as they are in more authoritarian societies, do you think that the rate of people breaking that law would be the same, or less?

Of course, I am not suggesting that we implement such authoritarianism with our laws and penalties, but the underlying point remains. You can't eliminate all crime, but the more serious you enforce a law, the less propensity there is among otherwise law abiding citizens to break it. That Libertarian nonsense that you are spewing is nothing more than pablum for the radical fringe who believe that anarchy is a good thing.

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.

So could someone aggress on another innocent person with a purchased gun if purchasing guns was no longer permitted? By your logic, all crime prevention is futile and against the natural state. We should aim for a society in which we never do anything to anyone until they kill or maim someone. Any attempt to limit killings and maiming is an infringement on liberty. Sounds like a utopia to me! 

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.

Who in the smelly hell gives a damn about protecting anyone from themselves? What an utterly idiotic and moronic attempt to reframe the debate. If these maniacs simply were using semi-automatic firearms to commit suicide, would we be having this debate?

[CBWx2]

Perhaps you're right. He opposed open rebellion against the Union in October of 1786, but then was all for it as of February of 1787.

OOOOORRRRRRR...perhaps the language written into the 2nd amendment and Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution directly calling for the formation and standardization of militias to put down armed insurrections came to be because of the fact that one had just occurred.

Nah, couldn't be. Your suggestion sounds so much more logical...

And Delirious, I'd try a bit harder to not post statements by the founders that they never even said before I'd start telling anyone to suck it. What a buffoon...

OOOOORRRRRRR........ he evolved?

That's quite a revelation for him to have had in less than 4 months.

[spartan]

Perhaps you're right. He opposed open rebellion against the Union in October of 1786, but then was all for it as of February of 1787.

OOOOORRRRRRR...perhaps the language written into the 2nd amendment and Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution directly calling for the formation and standardization of militias to put down armed insurrections came to be because of the fact that one had just occurred.

Nah, couldn't be. Your suggestion sounds so much more logical...

And Delirious, I'd try a bit harder to not post statements by the founders that they never even said before I'd start telling anyone to suck it. What a buffoon...

OOOOORRRRRRR........ he evolved?

That's quite a revelation for him to have had in less than 4 months.

You mean like Gay Marriage?

[CBWx2]

Perhaps you're right. He opposed open rebellion against the Union in October of 1786, but then was all for it as of February of 1787.

OOOOORRRRRRR...perhaps the language written into the 2nd amendment and Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution directly calling for the formation and standardization of militias to put down armed insurrections came to be because of the fact that one had just occurred.

Nah, couldn't be. Your suggestion sounds so much more logical...

And Delirious, I'd try a bit harder to not post statements by the founders that they never even said before I'd start telling anyone to suck it. What a buffoon...

OOOOORRRRRRR........ he evolved?

That's quite a revelation for him to have had in less than 4 months.

You mean like Gay Marriage?

So Washington and Obama are similar in your view? That's perhaps the only positive thing I think you've ever written about the president. 

All deflection aside, your initial premise was that because Washington led a rebellion he supported the right to rebel against the Union. His letter suggests otherwise, and now you are suggesting that his position had changed completely from October of 1786 to February of 1787. Seriously here, spartan, you have to see the absurdity of such a suggestion. All evidence points to the clear position that armed insurrection against the Union was not a supported ideal among the founders.

The rebellion against England was fought due to the lack of representation and say in the direction of their own destiny imposed onto the colonies by British government. By creating their own country under the rule of representative government, they essentially removed from society what they perceived was the cause of their rebellion. The Constitution was written under the assumption that it would eliminate just cause for rebellion in the eyes of the founders. Disputes with the policy and direction of the country were to be taken up in the assembly halls and the voting booth, which is what the founders would have preferred to have done with England rather than a full on rebellion. The Constitution was not written with the notion that a perpetual state of fear of rebellion against the government is a good thing. That's a ridiculous suggestion to make, and there is absolutely no factual evidence that supports such a suggestion. The best any of you have been able to come up with is a bunch of random quotes, that are either used out of context or are not even verifiable to have ever actually been spoken.

[CBWx2]

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

"There is no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, resulting in more or less the same amount of death. Elementary as this point is, proponents of the more guns equal more death mantra seem oblivious to it "

Isn't that what I have been trying to say for the last 3 or 4 days?

Harvard is a fount of knowledge...

"Analyses that controlled for several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.

These results suggest that it is easier for potential homicide perpetrators to obtain a gun in states where guns are more prevalent. 'Our findings suggest that in the United States, household firearms may be an important source of guns used to kill children, women and men, both on the street and in their homes,' said Miller."

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html

[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.

Perhaps you're right. He opposed open rebellion against the Union in October of 1786, but then was all for it as of February of 1787.

OOOOORRRRRRR...perhaps the language written into the 2nd amendment and Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution directly calling for the formation and standardization of militias to put down armed insurrections came to be because of the fact that one had just occurred.

Nah, couldn't be. Your suggestion sounds so much more logical... ::

My "suggestion" isn't a "suggestion" at all.  It's a fact.  You can play Washington's psychologist all you like, but I'm dealing with the facts.