U.S. justices could decide constitutionality of gun ownership

[brien]

I didn't. Brien did. "I see my right to keep and bear arms as an unalienable right endowed to me by my creator,"

I merely quote TJ. "Unalienable rights... endowed by our creator" was a phrase coined by TJ. Try keeping up Sonart.

[brien]

Not to mention some armored divisions. And artillery. Some air support would be nice. And a navy, of course....

Sure. It couldn't be done on an ideological basis first in the armed forces, and then then forcibly, with regard to the three branches of government? Where would you be without an armed population then? How would you protect yourself if the armed forces took over your democracy and declared martial law?

In contrast, if you use the armed forces to crush a widespread popular insurrection, are you going to bomb your population into oblivion? What if the armed rebels used AL Qaeda for its model? You folks were all too quick to point out it works in the ME. They have nothing more than guns, RPG's and the IED. It can't work here? Right.

You anti gun guys sometimes tailor your argument without considering how it would apply to the opposite side.

[brien]

if those citizens are ARMED, as you advocate, then you bet our troops will fire.

Citizens don't have to be armed for troops to fire upon them. Perhaps you are too young to recall the Kent State Massacre. I remember it like it was yesterday and I will never forget it. That is your scenario when people don't have firearms and the authorites do. I also seem to recall a little situation known as Tienemen Square. This is what happens when the populace is disarmed by the government.

[brien]

Point being that we are the most violent civilized nations on earth, specifically BECAUSE we're a culture that worships firearms and the mythology that surrounds them.

Where are the STUDIES, FACTS and FIGURES to specifially support this statement.

The statement made by Sonart above is another unsubstantiated rush to judgement which he fabricates to convince himself and others that his argument is the righteous one. He even couches it in religious terms. Please spare us the rhetorical bluster and using words buzzwords like worship. I yi yi..

[Praxius]

Quote by: brien Where are the STUDIES, FACTS and FIGURES to specifially support this statement. The statement made by Sonart above is another unsubstantiated rush to judgement which he fabricates to convince himself and others that his argument is the righteous one. He even couches it in religious terms. Please spare us the rhetorical bluster and using words buzzwords like worship. I yi yi..

Well considdering most in the US have this complete addiction to their firearms to the point where most feel not safe unless they have one in their possesions, and somehow confused wording for a Militia and "Arms" as somehow being their own right to owning firearms for their personal use.... it's more so common sense that for the most part, this is how the majority view them.

Sources? Look at the number of defenses and explinations in these forums alone that use examples of being robbed or attacked by some unforseen violent crime coming their way and that how many regard firearms as a nessicary "Tool" to protecting themselves.

Their very own words reference this mentality.

[brien]

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it mention "unalienable rights". That phrase only exists in the Declaration of Independence, which, despite your defining it as one of the "Charters of Freedom", is not a legal document. It's simply a list of grievances published as a PR document to justify our rebellion to the world.

Sonart minimizes the DOI because he refuses to understand that this document issued by our Founding Fathers is the cornerstone of the ideology of the United States of America and specifically states the reasons for founding this nation. It is the foundation of our political system. The DOI sets up government to secure the rights outlined in the document. It states:

[quote]

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Therefore, we see how the DOI is inextricably linked to the Constitution of the US on the issue of rights alone. Since many of the signers of the DOI also signed the Constitution, we must accept these men all agreed that the use of the word "rights" in the Constitution was derived from the same meaning they agreed to use in the DOI. Anyone who attempts to divorce the influence of the DOI from the Constitution and the establishment of the foundations of the government, either doesn't know those documents as well as can be understood, or they have an agenda that perhaps serves a pernicious attempt to undermine our Constitution and the very foundations of our nation.

[brien]

Quote by: Praxius Well considdering most in the US have this complete addiction to their firearms to the point where most feel not safe unless they have one in their possesions, and somehow confused wording for a Militia and "Arms" as somehow being their own right to owning firearms for their personal use.... it's more so common sense that for the most part, this is how the majority view them. Sources? Look at the number of defenses and explinations in these forums alone that use examples of being robbed or attacked by some unforseen violent crime coming their way and that how many regard firearms as a nessicary "Tool" to protecting themselves. Their very own words reference this mentality.

All I see is a subjective view that is only validated by one's own opinion. Fine and dandy, but it ain't STUDIES, FACTS & FIGURES?

[Praxius]

Fine then... show me STUDIES, FACTS and FIGURES proving that the right to owning firearms actually helps prevent crimes and better society overall.....

Ah, but then this is where you would tell me that all of that would be irrelevent since the Consitution states how it is, so that's it.

Then we go back into debating what the Constitution states and start all over again.

Fun Eh?

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said: Fine then... show me STUDIES, FACTS and FIGURES proving that the right to owning firearms actually helps prevent crimes and better society overall.....

Thats a no brainer.

What do police carry to stop a crime in progress? (force, usually lethal)
What do the militaries of all nations carry to stop a genocide, or the subversion of their people by armed insurgents? (force, usually lethal)
What does a law abiding citizen use to stop an armed attacker? (force, usually lethal)

The amount of force required, depends on the amount of force presented against you, which is why the people retain the right of armed defense, and lethal force for protection of self, loved ones and property.

Firearms are the only competent defense against firearms, and while all militaries and governments, as well as criminals use firearms, innocent citizens must retain that right of equal and just defense.

[brien]

Fine then... show me STUDIES, FACTS and FIGURES proving that the right to owning firearms actually helps prevent crimes and better society overall.....

I didn't make this claim. But since you asked here are some world wide stats:

Can Gun Control Reduce Crime? Part 2

Below are some stats for the US

Gun Laws essays

Using the FBI's crime-rate data for all 3,054 U.S. counties by year from 1977 to 1992, I co-authored a study in the January 1997 Journal of Legal Studies. We found that concealed handguns deter violent crimes and produce no significant increase in accidental handgun deaths. The accompanying figures show how dramatic this drop is by illustrating how different violent crime rates change before and after the adoption of these laws. The size and timing of the decline coincide closely with the number of concealed-handgun permits issued. Counties issuing the most new permits had the greatest drops in crimes.

Below are some stats that correct some of the half truths pushed by the Brady types.

Gun Control: Paul Helmke Continues Brady Tradition | NewsBusters.org

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: brien Well, couldn't one say this about automobiles? It doesn't mean we should do anything to ban people from owning them.

This is just silly, brien. Automobiles are, unlike firearms, a privilege to possess and operate, an invaluable tool and an economic asset to the point where the U.S. economy would collapse without them. Moreover, they're basically safe when operated correctly... just compare the number of automobile fatalities to the millions upon millions of times automobiles are operated in this country every hour, vastly more than firearms.

Guns, on the other hand, are intentionally lethal when operated correctly, and serve only that purpose... lethality.

Quote by: brien More undocumented drivel that adds nothing to the debate.

To the contrary, Zeebedee made a perfectly astute observation. I've proven, and you've basically conceded, that based on the Constitution, you don't have the 2nd Amendment rights you think you do. As a result, several here have simply railed against the Supreme Court, Liberals, etc. etc. .. exactly as Zeebedee described, whining against a ruling based on the same Constitution they glorify.

Quote by: brien Sure. It couldn't be done on an ideological basis first in the armed forces, and then then forcibly, with regard to the three branches of government? Where would you be without an armed population then? How would you protect yourself if the armed forces took over your democracy and declared martial law?

Brien, I could invent scenerios in which it would probably be better not to wear a automobile seat belt. But that doesn't change the fact that in 99% of accidents, wearing a seat belt would be vastly better than not.

If the rebellion begins within the armed forces, then armed citizens would simply be getting in the way... a hindrance if they're with the military, fodder if they're against.

Quote by: brien In contrast, if you use the armed forces to crush a widespread popular insurrection, are you going to bomb your population into oblivion?

I guess that depends on how violent and persistent the insurrection is, doesn't it. Certainly didn't stop anyone in the Civil War, did it? Or MOVE or the SLA or Shay's or the Whiskey Rebellion or Waco or whoever.

Quote by: brien You anti gun guys sometimes tailor your argument without considering how it would apply to the opposite side.

To the contrary, that's exactly what you did just now... tailored your 'Revolution' to work out as you preferred.

Quote by: brien The statement made by Sonart above is another unsubstantiated rush to judgement which he fabricates to convince himself and others that his argument is the righteous one.

I presented evidence on the last page... sufficient enough for Osborn break into a stutter trying to explain how our violence is justified because our liberty to succeed or fail makes folks so tense... or... something.

Quote by: brien Sonart minimizes the DOI because he refuses to understand that this document issued by our Founding Fathers is the cornerstone of the ideology of the United States of America and specifically states the reasons for founding this nation. It is the foundation of our political system.

Really? Care to point out where in this 'foundation' mentions the baring of arms? And it's still not a legal document.

Besides, hasn't it struck you that the DOI was politically expedient in that, because it served the colonies political purposes, it declares that rebellion is a God given right, yet, when it came time to build a new Constitution, the God given right to rebell against the new government is nowhere to be found. In fact, to the exact contrary, the new constitution made ample provision, on both state and federal levels, on how insurrections could be put down by force of arms.

And then, four score and seven years later, Abraham Lincoln was so convinced that allowing an armed rebellion to succeed meant the complete failure of those "foundations of our political system" that he fought a massive war to prove no such insurrection could ever succeed.

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

An obvious lie, since the constitution based on this "foundation of our political system" makes specific reference to the fact that untaxed Indians and "other persons" (slaves) were not equal and had no such rights..

Nor does the DOI say anything whatsoever about guns.

.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: I presented evidence on the last page... sufficient enough for Osborn break into a stutter trying to explain how our violence is justified because our liberty to succeed or fail makes folks so tense... or... something

LOL....

If there was a stutter, it was because I was shocked a reasonable person would approach issues like this as you do. Perhaps I was quick to judge on the "reasonable" issue.

My replies were as ridiculous as your questions.

Sonart said: And then, four score and seven years later, Abraham Lincoln was so convinced that allowing an armed rebellion to succeed meant the complete failure of those "foundations of our political system" that he fought a massive war to prove no such insurrection could ever succeed.

No such insurrection could ever succeed?

LOL....

(gets popcorn and soda for this...)

Ok, explain how he did that Sonart.
And then, you may want to explain why none could succed, demonstrate how you arrive there, and put forth some reasonable evidence and explanation for arriving at that point.

AS of now, I see a lot of reasons to chuckle, but not much else.

I anxiously await your reply.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart This is just silly, brien. Automobiles are, unlike firearms, a privilege to possess and operate, an invaluable tool and an economic asset to the point where the U.S. economy would collapse without them. Moreover, they're basically safe when operated correctly... just compare the number of automobile fatalities to the millions upon millions of times automobiles are operated in this country every hour, vastly more than firearms.

Ah, but the deaths you have alluded to thinking are the most egregious, the accidental deaths of children, are a primary focus of the anti-gun establishment.


Face it, automobiles produce more accidental deaths than even people misusing guns.

Quote by: Sonart Guns, on the other hand, are intentionally lethal when operated correctly, and serve only that purpose... lethality.

Yep, and hammers hammer nails, and staplers staple staples.

Quote by: Sonart To the contrary, Zeebedee made a perfectly astute observation. I've proven, and you've basically conceded, that based on the Constitution, you don't have the 2nd Amendment rights you think you do. As a result, several here have simply railed against the Supreme Court, Liberals, etc. etc. .. exactly as Zeebedee described, whining against a ruling based on the same Constitution they glorify.

An "interpretation" well after the SCOTUS had been stacked with ideologs who passed the litmus tests of their Liberal appointees.

Quote by: Sonart I presented evidence on the last page... sufficient enough for Osborn break into a stutter trying to explain how our violence is justified because our liberty to succeed or fail makes folks so tense... or... something.

Sociological diagnosis have no place in the 'leglity" of gun ownership.


Many of us would argue that it's the Liberal teaching institutions that produced the real harm.

Quote by: Sonart Besides, hasn't it struck you that the DOI was politically expedient in that, because it served the colonies political purposes, it declares that rebellion is a God given right, yet, when it came time to build a new Constitution, the God given right to rebell against the new government is nowhere to be found. In fact, to the exact contrary, the new constitution made ample provision, on both state and federal levels, on how insurrections could be put down by force of arms.

Perhaps then, you would care to explain the language where they allude to the citizens having the right to remove, or throw off tyrants in their own government?


How were to go about that with a "militia" you cay consists of the National Guard?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: brien I merely quote TJ. "Unalienable rights... endowed by our creator" was a phrase coined by TJ. Try keeping up Sonart.

Yeah, so??? You still brought up God, not me. That's all I was telling Osborn. How does that call for the snarky response?

Quote by: brien These aren't rights which are specifically indicated as such in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment specifically says: "the right to keep and bear arms." I am not familiar with the amendment that spells out a right to travel, the right to health care, etc. Straw dogs here, Sonart.

The right to feed your family isn't an inalienable right endowed by our creator??? The right to shelter for your family? To medical care for your family? To travel where and when you see fit?

The point you're obviously missing is that there's a certain arbitrariness to what's a God given unalienable right. Who determines what's an inalienable right? And how did owning a firearm become more important than any of the above?

And since your answer is "rights which are specifically indicated as such in the Constitution", then why are all of you whining when the rules indicated in the Constitution determine that the 2nd Amendment means something totally different than what you think it means.

Quote by: Osborn My replies were as ridiculous as your questions.

What, that being among the most violent societies on earth is just fine, because the Darwinian nature of unrestricted freedom drives people to it???

Sure, Osborn, that sounds like a lovely society... whatever you say.

Quote by: Osborn And then, you may want to explain why none could succeed, demonstrate how you arrive there, and put forth some reasonable evidence and explanation for arriving at that point.

Sorry, I miswrote... no armed insurrection can ever be ALLOWED to succeed. But to that point, I'm still waiting for an example of an armed insurrection against and within the United States - from its founding to the present - that has been allowed to succeed.

Quote by: Milton Ah, but the deaths you have alluded to thinking are the most egregious, the accidental deaths of children, are a primary focus of the anti-gun establishment. Face it, automobiles produce more accidental deaths than even people misusing guns.

Face it yourself... as a percentage of the amount of time they're in use, automobiles are vastly safer than guns. It's like saying domestic dog bites are more numerous than mountain lion bites, therefore, taken individually, dogs are more dangerous than mountain lions. It's a false comparison....

...and you know it.

Quote by: Milton Yep, and hammers hammer nails, and staplers staple staples.

Yes, they do. And neither are designed to kill people.

Quote by: Milton An "interpretation" well after the SCOTUS had been stacked with ideologs who passed the litmus tests of their Liberal appointees.

Doesn't matter, Milton... that's your gripe to live with. The Constitution made perfectly clear how Presidents are to be elected, how the Supreme Court is appointed and what the function of the Supreme Court is. Tough beans if 200 years later the result doesn't happen to conform to your 18th century view of how the world should be.

Quote by: Milton Many of us would argue that it's the Liberal teaching institutions that produced the real harm.

Yes, I'm sure you would. Take that and a buck fifty and you can get a cup of coffee.

Quote by: Milton Perhaps then, you would care to explain the language where they allude to the citizens having the right to remove, or throw off tyrants in their own government?

And perhaps you can show where the Constitution gives you that right. The 2nd Amendment says, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep...", not "It being necessary to throw off tyrants in their own government, the right to keep... etc.".

The Declaration of Independence, as I keep saying, was not a legal document. It was a list of grievances and a declaration of intent... an international press release declaring the colonies intent to leave the British Commonwealth. Of COURSE it alluded to a right to throw off tyranny. But once again, the Constitution makes no allusion whatsoever to that "Right", because no legitimate government can allow an armed insurrection against them to succeed, and that included the government created by the very founders who espoused rebellion when it suited their purpose. Once their own government was formed, neither Washington, nor Adams, nor Jefferson, nor any of the signers of the DOI would have allowed rebellion against THEIR governments to succeed, and obviously made no provision in the Constitution to facilitate such rebellion. To the contrary, one of the enumerated duties of the "Well Regulated Militia" was specifically to "Put Down Insurrections".

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Face it yourself... as a percentage of the amount of time they're in use, automobiles are vastly safer than guns. It's like saying domestic dog bites are more numerous than mountain lion bites, therefore, taken individually, dogs are more dangerous than mountain lions. It's a false comparison....

Nonsense, or you would have the stats to back it up.

Quote by: Sonart ...and you know it.

No, what I know is not to blame the inanimate object for the actions of the man implementing said object.

Quote by: Sonart Yes, they do. And neither are designed to kill people.

Lucky for you that guns do kill people, or your life would be very different. Most likely you'd be speaking German, if you existed at all.

Quote by: Sonart Doesn't matter, Milton... that's your gripe to live with. The Constitution made perfectly clear how Presidents are to be elected, how the Supreme Court is appointed and what the function of the Supreme Court is. Tough beans if 200 years later the result doesn't happen to conform to your 18th century view of how the world should be.

I know how fond you are of disregarding "orginal intent", but I just don't see how you can avoid it. The people that originally signed the contract, agreed with the language, and the intent.

Quote by: Sonart Yes, I'm sure you would. Take that and a buck fifty and you can get a cup of coffee.

And gossip with the girls about Liberal education, and all it's doing for America?

Quote by: Sonart And perhaps you can show where the Constitution gives you that right. The 2nd Amendment says, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep...", not "It being necessary to throw off tyrants in their own government, the right to keep... etc.".

You have seen the quotes from the drafters, and signers of the document. What can I impart on you that their words cannot?


Face it, this is a classic case of bias, you just don't like guns, or the gun culture.


Whaere will you be when Star Trek is realized, and everybody want a Phaser?

Quote by: Sonart The Declaration of Independence, as I keep saying, was not a legal document. It was a list of grievances and a declaration of intent... an international press release declaring the colonies intent to leave the British Commonwealth. Of COURSE it alluded to a right to throw off tyranny. But once again, the Constitution makes no allusion whatsoever to that "Right", because no legitimate government can allow an armed insurrection against them to succeed, and that included the government created by the very founders who espoused rebellion when it suited their purpose. Once their own government was formed, neither Washington, nor Adams, nor Jefferson, nor any of the signers of the DOI would have allowed rebellion against THEIR governments to succeed, and obviously made no provision in the Constitution to facilitate such rebellion. To the contrary, one of the enumerated duties of the "Well Regulated Militia" was specifically to "Put Down Insurrections".

Then why would they include the language about the citizens ability to throw off tyrants in their own government? You never do address that question.


You also conveniently miss that other question about how one would go about removing tyrannical leaders with a tyrant controlled National Guard.


When the National Guard was Federalized, it lost all resemblance to the "militia" defined in the constitution because it came under control of the Federal government, thus, not a "State Militia".

[phoenix_fire]

We could just go back to swords. Heh heh. Works for me

[Osborn F Enready]

So let me get this straight Sonart....

You are saying we are a police state since Lincoln, and this makes you happy? You are a loyal servant to King George, or whomever happens to fill the seat?

Your entire argument thus far has been comedic to say the least.

[brien]

Yeah, so??? You still brought up God, not me. That's all I was telling Osborn. How does that call for the snarky response?

And I keep telling everyone it was TJ who used the phrase "endowed by the creator:...not me. I never injected "God" into anything. I never even used the word "God". Good gawd!

[brien]

Who determines what's an inalienable right? And how did owning a firearm become more important than any of the above?

Sonart, you aren't keeping up now, are you? "Unalienable rights", according to TJ and the DOI, are enowed by your creator and you are born with them. Government only gurantees and protects them. TJ makes this crystal clear.

Some of these rights, which are specified in the DOI, such as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, are specifically enumerated in the Constitution by way of the the BOR Amendments. They are drafted from the DOI which you minimize because you understand the importance of the IDEAS that are transferred from that document into the Constitution. Your little charade doesn't fool me. For example, the right to life is protected by the 2nd Amendment, the right to Liberty is protected by the 1st Amendment, and the Right to Happiness is protected by the 4th Amendment. These are the connections.

So, we see that the Constitution and the DOI are inextricably linked in terms of "rights". Many of the grievances listed in the DOI are answered by a right that is enumerated in the constitution. Indeed, to separate the two documents is merely done for your own convenience in your anti 2nd amendment arguments. This Sonart, is quite transparent.

I should know better to argue the same old ground with you on this matter. It becomes so tedious and verges upon the boring. If you can't see the connections between the DOI and the BOR, then I can't really spend anymore time on this matter with you. It does me, and others, no good to