Justices agree on right to own guns

[Deadeye]

One of the most common arguments against gun ownership is that the right is limited to "militas". As we all know militas fought the British during the early days of the Revolutionary War. Doesn't matter that they were usually defeated, they did fight.

Today, it's argued that the National Guard is the milita. Not so. The militia is made up of armed citizens, losely formed into some sort of an organization. If, for instance; we had a small town in Arizona invaded by a band of Mexican renegades, as we did in 1915 (not sure of the date) we'd have a bunch of citizens dash out of their homes armed with their 30/30's, or their Glocks, or their AR-15's to do battle. If they got together an organized themselves into a quasi military unit we could call them a militia.

I know that I'd fight. I know my wife would fight. But we practice with our guns all of the time. It's fun for us. We also live in a sparsly populated state not far from the "boonies".

We have very little crime here. If it wasn't for speed and disgruntled husbands we wouldn't have any crime at all.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart . "The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:" Nowhere did I ever state, or even insinuate, that children should be banned from watching certain kinds of television. To the contrary, I said that the 1st Amendment defends the medias right to say and show almost whatever they like. What I DID say was that scientific research has found that violence in media can make children more agressive. "Making the case" scientifically is entirely different than making the case in court. .

What straw man?


I simply pointed out that since they could not make one case, what maks you think they make the other, which is so similar.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Deadeye No not at all. You are saying that if we had no guns whatsoever that we'd have no crime. That's foolishness.

Jeez, you people love to put words in people's mouths. NO ONE is saying that with no guns there'd be no crime. NO ONE. What we're saying is that guns make violent death, whether in the committing of a crime or a domestic dispute, really, REALLY easy. Therefore, the more guns are available, the easier and easier it becomes.

Quote by: Deadeye One of the most common arguments against gun ownership is that the right is limited to "militas". As we all know militas fought the British during the early days of the Revolutionary War. Doesn't matter that they were usually defeated, they did fight.

Yeah... so? The founders distrusted a standing federal army and wanted the defense of the nation placed in the hands of citizen militias, meaning that it's members would be REQUIRED to own proper arms. Hence the qualifying phrase the 2nd Amendment... "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state,..."

Quote by: Deadeye Without a gun the strong and mighty have all of the power over the weak and frail.

Nonsense. We have pointed out again and again and again that the United States, the most heavily armed free, industrialized nation on earth, is also the most murderous, gun violent wealthy nation on earth, and that other countries, almost all of which have far stricter gun control than we do, commit far fewer murders per capita than we do.

Your wishful assumption is just flat out wrong.

Quote by: Deadeye It's been shown time and time again that if more law abiding citizens are armed there is less crime. If you don't beleive me then read, "More Guns Less Crime". It pretty much spells it all out.

Really? Shown where? Not here...



(gun related deaths per 100,000 people - 2002)

Quote by: Deadeye Today, it's argued that the National Guard is the milita. Not so. The militia is made up of armed citizens, losely formed into some sort of an organization. If, for instance; we had a small town in Arizona invaded by a band of Mexican renegades, as we did in 1915 (not sure of the date) we'd have a bunch of citizens dash out of their homes armed with their 30/30's, or their Glocks, or their AR-15's to do battle. If they got together an organized themselves into a quasi military unit we could call them a militia.

LOL... it was 1916, and ironically enough, Villa's raid into New Mexico, which had become a state only 4 years earlier, was because Villa had been ripped off by American gun dealers.

Which is beside the point. You're simply wrong... the Constitution of the United States defines the militia...

Article I, Section 8 -- Congress shall have the power to...

Clause 15 -- provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Clause 16 -- 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, Section 2 -- 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;

That doesn't sound much like your gang border yahoos, does it?

Quote by: Deadeye We also live in a sparsly populated state not far from the "boonies".

How very nice for you. Unfortunately, 97% of the American people live in considerably more crowded urban/suburban conditions far less amenable to unrestricted gun play.

Quote by: Milton What straw man? I simply pointed out that since they could not make one case, what maks you think they make the other, which is so similar.

Obviously not a thing, since no one mentioned anything at all about court cases or telling the media what they could or could not air. We simply pointed out that scientific research has found a connection between media violence and violent behavior in children. Period. The only one talking about court cases is you... making it a strawman.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Obviously not a thing, since no one mentioned anything at all about court cases or telling the media what they could or could not air. We simply pointed out that scientific research has found a connection between media violence and violent behavior in children. Period. The only one talking about court cases is you... making it a strawman.

No, it is a "thing", because it's not a strawman on my end, it's you laboring over an uncontested point, again. ( I see those same old stats making another appearance. )


Again, who disputes the association, or the numbers? Who?


How about you stop circling the subject like a WW II pilot on a strafing run.


Obviously, the Liberals introducing anti-gun legislation intend to remove firarms, and restrict gun ownership. So even if you don't support thier position completely, the Representative you guys elect will likely introduce legislation based on the same stupid ideas we see heading to court on D.C..


How will you rationalize that away?


What antacids work best to alleviate that pesky burn associated with the realization that you are helping to elect hypocrites to Represent us in Washington?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton No, it is a "thing", because it's not a strawman on my end, it's you laboring over an uncontested point, again.

I'm laboring under nothing... I'll repeat;

"Nowhere did I ever state, or even insinuate, that children should be banned from watching certain kinds of television. To the contrary, I said that the 1st Amendment defends the medias right to say and show almost whatever they like."

Quote by: Milton ( I see those same old stats making another appearance. )

Yep, and you'll likely see that 800 lb. gorilla again and again, whenever some newbie comes swaggering in here laboring under the gun lobby's disingenuous baloney that more guns mean less crime. I'm sure it's swell that crime dropped slightly in butfork, NE, pop. 20,000, after a mandatory carry law was passed. (When was that again? During the 30% nationwide drop in crime in the mid 90's?)

But it doesn't change for one second that the most heavily armed nation, per capita, on earth is also among the most murderous per capita.

Quote by: Milton How about you stop circling the subject like a WW II pilot on a strafing run.

It's the nature of these debate boards, Milton. All these debates are circular, especially ongoing philosophical ones like gun control, abortion, church & state, etc. There's always fresh faced new folks earnestly popping up, making arguments that us old vets thought we'd put to rest weeks and months ago.

Heck, follow Xyzer's debate on the Global Warming thread. Y'know that old folk song, 'There's a Hole in the Bucket, Dear Liza, Dear Liza'. That's Xyzer, the master of circular nonsense.

Quote by: Milton So even if you don't support thier position completely, the Representative you guys elect will likely introduce legislation based on the same stupid ideas we see heading to court on D.C.

Beats the heck out of the opposite, which is those who'd advocate unrestricted access to any and all firearms because their ideological belief that it's a symbol of freedom.

Quote by: Milton What antacids work best to alleviate that pesky burn associated with the realization that you are helping to elect hypocrites to Represent us in Washington?

I dunnno... tell me what works for you after you pull the lever for Bob Barr.

.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Sonart . Jeez, you people love to put words in people's mouths. NO ONE is saying that with no guns there'd be no crime. NO ONE. What we're saying is that guns make violent death, whether in the committing of a crime or a domestic dispute, really, REALLY easy. Therefore, the more guns are available, the easier and easier it becomes.

I respond on point at a time.

You ignored my point that an armed citizen is free from the assaults of stronger, younger thugs. So an armed citizen is not as likely to be victimized. Therefore I'd rather be armed than not. So should you.

I'm not sure that guns make violent crimes easier. A club is very easy to pick up and use. They are also cheap and easy to find, and in the hands of a big strong thug used against a smaller older person they are just as deadly.

We to keep things fair, and safe we allow the smaller, older guy to buy and carry a gun. He is safer by doing so.

You must understand this, it's also proven by statistics.

Again, read "More Guns Less Crime".

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Deadeye You ignored my point that an armed citizen is free from the assaults of stronger, younger thugs. So an armed citizen is not as likely to be victimized. Therefore I'd rather be armed than not. So should you.

I didn't ignore your point at all, Deadeye. I pointed out that, while it's a lovely theory and may be anecdotally true in some cases, the evidence -- meaning that while the United States is the most heavily armed nation on earth, it is also the most murderous -- seems to directly contradict your statement.

Just because you say something doesn't mean it's the case.

Quote by: Deadeye I'm not sure that guns make violent crimes easier. A club is very easy to pick up and use.

An 11 yr-old and his 13 yr-old friend were able to kill their teacher, 5 of their classmates and badly injure 10 more... all by simply pulling a trigger while lying down 200 ft away. Two teenagers were able to walk into a Colorado high school and kill 12 students, an adult male teacher, and seriously injure 23 others in under an hour.

Let's see you do that with a club... provided you can get them all to hold still long enough.

Quote by: Deadeye We to keep things fair, and safe we allow the smaller, older guy to buy and carry a gun. He is safer by doing so.

The FACTS say differently, Deadeye. While I'm sure it makes sense in your head, the facts are that you simply end up with lots of smaller guys killing more people right along with the bigger guys.

In fact, how many of the endless spate of school killings were by "Little Guys" who were bullied by unarmed bigger guys and retaliated out of all proportion? That strike you as "keeping things fair"?

Quote by: Deadeye You must understand this, it's also proven by statistics

And yet oddly enough, I'm the only one on this thread actually presenting statistics. Go figure.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart I'm laboring under nothing... I'll repeat; "Nowhere did I ever state, or even insinuate, that children should be banned from watching certain kinds of television. To the contrary, I said that the 1st Amendment defends the medias right to say and show almost whatever they like."

However you seem unwilling to address the point I do make.


Just like in the media example, you may not support the "Liberal position" one hundred percent, but your Liberal Representatives always seem to attempt to take the agenda much further than their supporters.

Quote by: Sonart Yep, and you'll likely see that 800 lb. gorilla again and again, whenever some newbie comes swaggering in here laboring under the gun lobby's disingenuous baloney that more guns mean less crime. I'm sure it's swell that crime dropped slightly in butfork, NE, pop. 20,000, after a mandatory carry law was passed. (When was that again? During the 30% nationwide drop in crime in the mid 90's?)

Overall, throughout the world, more guns does equal less crime. Often not the few specific crimes your study convenienty focus upon, but across the board, violent crimes do decrease when guns are in the hands of citizens.


I don't want to play the statistic war, but suffice to say that we don't believe the numbers alone tell the story, or that it's even a valid contention against the Second Amendment.


That's just the side playing from Left fields attempt to let "the reason" they want to restrict guns stand as the "justification" for restricting guns. It's a sad, pathetic, disingenuous tactic employed by those with no leg to stand on.


That's why these discussions end up being circular in nature. You guys won't answer the fekkin questions honestly, and then you keep repeating the one valid point you do have like you're polishing your trophy in front of us to make us jealous.

Quote by: Sonart But it doesn't change for one second that the most heavily armed nation, per capita, on earth is also among the most murderous per capita.

Example A ) Polly wants a cracker. Squawk!

Quote by: Sonart It's the nature of these debate boards, Milton. All these debates are circular, especially ongoing philosophical ones like gun control, abortion, church & state, etc. There's always fresh faced new folks earnestly popping up, making arguments that us old vets thought we'd put to rest weeks and months ago. Heck, follow Xyzer's debate on the Global Warming thread. Y'know that old folk song, 'There's a Hole in the Bucket, Dear Liza, Dear Liza'. That's Xyzer, the master of circular nonsense.

Glad to see you're emulating what you consider to be the very best.


No, unfortunately, it's people in denial who refuse to conceed a point. You just keep stating the same uncontested factiods over, and over, as if eventually we will come up with a reason to want to dispute your graph. Nobody is doing any such thing.

Quote by: Sonart Beats the heck out of the opposite, which is those who'd advocate unrestricted access to any and all firearms because their ideological belief that it's a symbol of freedom.

Really? Subverting Constitutional protections is better than defending them?


Wow, that's a candid admission there comrade, and it perfectly illustrates why I say that Leftist movement is lead by commies.


Even more disconcerting is the fact that many of their supporters, like yourself, obviously don't care how far Left we go, as long as we move in that direction.

Quote by: Sonart I dunnno... tell me what works for you after you pull the lever for Bob Barr.

Pon Paul 08 ( Even if I have to write it in. )


Unless perhaps Jesse Ventura makes a run at the White House.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Deadeye I respond on point at a time. You ignored my point that an armed citizen is free from the assaults of stronger, younger thugs. So an armed citizen is not as likely to be victimized. Therefore I'd rather be armed than not. So should you. I'm not sure that guns make violent crimes easier. A club is very easy to pick up and use. They are also cheap and easy to find, and in the hands of a big strong thug used against a smaller older person they are just as deadly. We to keep things fair, and safe we allow the smaller, older guy to buy and carry a gun. He is safer by doing so. You must understand this, it's also proven by statistics. Again, read "More Guns Less Crime".

A couple of items concerning crime in the US. It doesn't exist outside of big cities. Cities is where it's the hardest for law abiding to get and carry guns. If you study the crime rates in rural and small town America it is extremely rare. So if you cut out crime in cities we have very little.

Also if teachers are threatened then they should be allow to be deputized and be armed. Why not? Teachers are generally trainable. They could be trained and I know that some parent would pay for their gun.

When that idiot in West Virginia locked himself inside that school building he knew that he was the only armed person in there. He had free reign to kill at will. If just one student, or one teacher had been armed then that situation would been different and 32 wonderful lives would be saved.

The 2nd Ammendment says that the people have the right to keep and bare arms. That means just what it says. It says that the "people", not the militia, not the army, not government officials, but the people. That means you and me.

When it says, "bare" arms it means to carry them, to wear them, to have them on our person.

Nor does the Constitution require you to carry a gun. If you don't want to carry a gun, then don't. Remember, a point that you fail to recognize; law abiding people hurt people with guns. There are hundreds of thousands of conceiled weapons permits issued in Oregon. There has never been, (as far as I know) an example of road rage where a guy used a legally owned/conceiled gun to vent his rage.

Fact is those who hate guns want me to get rid of mine. You simply do not have the power to do that. Until the 2nd Ammendment is revised I'll keep and bare arms. If the government tried to change that fact then millions of gun owners are going to be fighting mad.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: Sonart . But it doesn't change for one second that the most heavily armed nation, per capita, on earth is also among the most murderous per capita.

You're assuming a relationship where there may not be one. We're not violent because we have access to guns. We're violent because our society worships violence. If there were no guns we'd be beating each other to death with rocks. That's America. There are other heavily armed nations with much lower gun crime rates.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: GloriousCause You're assuming a relationship where there may not be one. We're not violent because we have access to guns. We're violent because our society worships violence.

And has access to the weapons necessary to carry out deadly violence.

Quote by: GloriousCause If there were no guns we'd be beating each other to death with rocks.

This is silly... I can run away from someone with a rock. You're simply inventing sh!t. It's access to guns that make deadly violence so incredibly easy.

Quote by: GloriousCause That's America. There are other heavily armed nations with much lower gun crime rates.

Yeah? For instance?

You're rationalizikng, GC. That's America? So why bother to improve it? Legalized slavery... so, that's America. Jim Crow segregation and racial discrimination... oh well, that's America. Discrimination and denial of opportunities to woman... too bad, that's America. Child factory labor, sweatshops, dangerous and unhealthy workplaces... sorry, that's America.

Tens of thousand dead, tens of thousands more maimed and injured every year because it pleases you to have more guns than you possibly need. God Bless America.

Quote by: Deadeye A couple of items concerning crime in the US. It doesn't exist outside of big cities. Cities is where it's the hardest for law abiding to get and carry guns. If you study the crime rates in rural and small town America it is extremely rare. So if you cut out crime in cities we have very little.

Unfortunately, the cities and city suburbs is where 85% of Americans live. So you're saying let's design our laws for the benefit of 15% of Amerians.

Yeah, that should work just swell.

Quote by: Deadeye Also if teachers are threatened then they should be allow to be deputized and be armed. Why not?

Because firearms make killing so easy, it's just as likely for teachers to shoot someone by mistake or under stress as anyone else.

Quote by: Deadeye The 2nd Ammendment says that the people have the right to keep and bare arms. That means just what it says. It says that the "people", not the militia, not the army, not government officials, but the people. That means you and me.

Sorry, Deadeye, but for the last 70 years, the standing U.S. Supreme Court and Circuit Court case law precedent declares that you do NOT have an individual right to own weapons, only a collective right based on the necessity of maintaining a well-regulated militia, as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Why do you always forget the first half of the Amendment? "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state...".

'The People' refers to citizens who form the citizen militias, as opposed to a standing federal army. Here's Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers...

--"By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''--

Should at any time the government form an army??? Whooops. What should we do with our federal Army, Army National Guard, Navy, Air Force and Marines in the meantime?

Quote by: Deadeye When it says, "bare" arms it means to carry them, to wear them, to have them on our person.

10. bear arms,
a. to carry weapons.
b. to serve as a member of the military or of contending forces:

Quote by: Deadeye Until the 2nd Ammendment is revised I'll keep and bare arms.

Sorry, but until the standing precedent on the 2nd Amendment is overturned, we can make as many gun control laws as we deem necessary.

Ask yourself... if you have the unrestricted right you claim to have, why hasn't, in over 70 years, the gun lobby challenged any of the 20,000 or so gun control laws that have been enacted... like the Brady Bill, etc. ...as violations of your 2nd Amendment right???

.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: GloriousCause You're assuming a relationship where there may not be one. We're not violent because we have access to guns. We're violent because our society worships violence. If there were no guns we'd be beating each other to death with rocks. That's America. There are other heavily armed nations with much lower gun crime rates.

No, it's not Americans that worship violence; mankind worships violence. All people over the entire Globe understand that violence is a part of life. Oh, sure Tibetan monks eschew violence, but look where it has gotten them.

Sit and consider for a moment when you last actually observed a violent act. We see some on TV in sporting events, but seldom do we ever actually see violence, unless on the road but that's usually in an accident.

We see a lot of fake violence on TV, but it's fake. America, in general is a very safe place and real criminal violence, out side of big cities; is very rare.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Sonart . And has access to the weapons necessary to carry out deadly violence. This is silly... I can run away from someone with a rock. You're simply inventing sh!t. It's access to guns that make deadly violence so incredibly easy. Yeah? For instance? You're rationalizikng, GC. That's America? So why bother to improve it? Legalized slavery... so, that's America. Jim Crow segregation and racial discrimination... oh well, that's America. Discrimination and denial of opportunities to woman... too bad, that's America. Child factory labor, sweatshops, dangerous and unhealthy workplaces... sorry, that's America. Tens of thousand dead, tens of thousands more maimed and injured every year because it pleases you to have more guns than you possibly need. God Bless America. Unfortunately, the cities and city suburbs is where 85% of Americans live. So you're saying let's design our laws for the benefit of 15% of Amerians. Yeah, that should work just swell. Because firearms make killing so easy, it's just as likely for teachers to shoot someone by mistake or under stress as anyone else. Sorry, Deadeye, but for the last 70 years, the standing U.S. Supreme Court and Circuit Court case law precedent declares that you do NOT have an individual right to own weapons, only a collective right based on the necessity of maintaining a well-regulated militia, as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Why do you always forget the first half of the Amendment? "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state...". 'The People' refers to citizens who form the citizen militias, as opposed to a standing federal army. Here's Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers... --"By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''-- Should at any time the government form an army??? Whooops. What should we do with our federal Army, Army National Guard, Navy, Air Force and Marines in the meantime? 10. bear arms, a. to carry weapons. b. to serve as a member of the military or of contending forces: Sorry, but until the standing precedent on the 2nd Amendment is overturned, we can make as many gun control laws as we deem necessary. Ask yourself... if you have the unrestricted right you claim to have, why hasn't, in over 70 years, the gun lobby challenged any of the 20,000 or so gun control laws that have been enacted... like the Brady Bill, etc. ...as violations of your 2nd Amendment right??? .

The Brady bill doesn't violate my 2nd Ammendment Rights. It just makes it more expensive and coplex to buy a gun. However, the folks who wrote the bill do indeed want Americans guns rights to own a gun to be taken from them. That being said; the Brady Bill is just an aggrevation.

If it keeps criminals from owning guns I'm for the Brady Bill. Trouble is it probably doesn't. It's just a thorn in the side of law abiding gun owners.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Deadeye The Brady bill doesn't violate my 2nd Ammendment Rights. It just makes it more expensive and coplex to buy a gun. However, the folks who wrote the bill do indeed want Americans guns rights to own a gun to be taken from them. That being said; the Brady Bill is just an aggrevation. If it keeps criminals from owning guns I'm for the Brady Bill. Trouble is it probably doesn't. It's just a thorn in the side of law abiding gun owners.

Does it not infringe upon that right? I should think the definition of infringe encompasses making it more expensive and complex.

The first amendment disallows congress to make a law abridging the freedom of speech. To that end we claim justification to all manner of "expression". Cool. The idea of the constitution is that our rights rest with the people, and only those we give to government are government's to affect.

So why is it so many are so willing to let government infringe upon of ability to keep and bear arms?

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: Sonart . And has access to the weapons necessary to carry out deadly violence.

But that's the wrong focus. If the problem is a societal attitude, the solution isn't to accept the attitude and remove from the equation a tool with many legitimate uses that is used legitimately by the vast majority of people who use it.

This is silly... I can run away from someone with a rock. You're simply inventing sh!t. It's access to guns that make deadly violence so incredibly easy.

I'm inventing shit? Guns don't precipitate violence. If that was the case, then Switzerland, a nation with a gun in every house and a gun rack in every restaurant, would be awash in gore. America's predisposition toward violence is a societal issue having nothing to do with the presence of firearms.

Yeah? For instance?

Switzerland comes to mind.

You're rationalizikng, GC.

No, but I am being rational.

That's America? So why bother to improve it? Legalized slavery... so, that's America. Jim Crow segregation and racial discrimination... oh well, that's America. Discrimination and denial of opportunities to woman... too bad, that's America. Child factory labor, sweatshops, dangerous and unhealthy workplaces... sorry, that's America.

Did I suggest we not improve it? No. I just told you the reality of the situation. We improve it by dealing with our societal predilection toward violence. As with the war on drugs, supply side solutions aren't going to cut it.

Tens of thousand dead, tens of thousands more maimed and injured every year because it pleases you to have more guns than you possibly need. God Bless America.

Pleases me? Did I give you any indication that it pleased me to have guns? I don't even own a gun.

However, I respect that guns are valuable to society, despite the harm they cause. People are always going to be hurt and maimed by guns, regardless of their legality. You can reduce the rate overall by making guns illegal, just as you can reduce the DWI and accident rate by raising the drinking age from 18 to 21. But at what cost? Making guns illegal may lower the rate of deaths and injuries overall, but that reduction is not universal among the causes of death and injury by firearm, and in some places you'd arguable see an increase - and there are strong talking points against prohibition based solely on the shift in gun violence that would occur in a "gun free" society.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: Deadeye No, it's not Americans that worship violence; mankind worships violence. All people over the entire Globe understand that violence is a part of life. Oh, sure Tibetan monks eschew violence, but look where it has gotten them.

You're drawing a rather strict dichotomy. Tibetan monks are on one extreme, and violent people are on the other. But there is a happy medium in between - a balance where aggression toward others is eschewed but self-defense is revered.

Sit and consider for a moment when you last actually observed a violent act. We see some on TV in sporting events, but seldom do we ever actually see violence, unless on the road but that's usually in an accident.

You're aware of Youtube, right?

We see a lot of fake violence on TV, but it's fake.

Too fake. I'd rather my kids get their understanding of violence from movies like Saving Private Ryan than movies like Lethal Weapon.

America, in general is a very safe place and real criminal violence, out side of big cities; is very rare.

I'm not contending that America has a crime epidemic, but we are a violent people. Hell, I'm not even against people seeing or experiencing violence - we were a lot less violent as a nation back when kids played with soldier dolls and had toy guns.

[Apeman81]

I carry a pistol with me at all times. I have never committed a crime against another person, violent or otherwise.

I have twice used a pistol to stop the furtherance of a crime. A car theft and an assault.

How am I or my weapon a danger to society?

How will denying me my right to "keep and bear arms" help society?

Guns are used in crimes? They are also used to prevent and halt crimes. They are obvioulsy neutral.

People commit crimes. They use knives, guns, axes, golf clubs and all manner of weapon. The only common factor is the person committing the crime.

So let's ban them.

[Sonart]

.