Justices agree on right to own guns

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: GloriousCause Opinions on this issue, among those well educated in Constitutional law, are all over the map. And keep in mind that much of what we consider "Constitutional law" is actually a study of precedent, not a study in the intent of the founders.

Then it's a good thing the U.S. Constitution, as confirmed by Marbury v. Madison, in 1803, declared that it's the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit Courts that decide what is and isn't constitutional. Otherwise it would get terribly confusing, wouldn't it.

Quote by: GloriousCause Because you're not in power.

Yes, I know. That's what I said.

Quote by: GloriousCause But keep in mind that power does not equal knowledge. The judges who achieve high status and power are of the same class as the Generals who achieve high status and power. They're not the smartest, they're not the best. They're just the ones with the best connections.

And that's what I just said about the 1st Amendment. That's certainly convenient for your opinion, but then.... "you're not in power", are you.

Quote by: GloriousCause When I say that I have an individual right to keep and bear arms, it isn't "a big lie" - it just isn't respected by the government.

It's completely a "Big Lie" because we are a country governed by the rule of law and the Constitution, and simply because 3/4 of a century of established law happens to disagree with your opinion doesn't make it any less the law of the land.

Jeez, get over yourself.

Quote by: GloriousCause Whether or not my opinion is held as the "law of the land" is irrelevant, IMHO the right exists.

LOL!!! Well then, by all means, go violate the nearest gun control law and when they arrest your ass, explain to them that, in your humble opinion, the "law of the land" is irrelevant.

legality does not change the truth of the Constitution, it just changes the rules we need to live by.

The truth of the Constitution is exactly as it reads... "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be impinged."

Meaning that "The people" - those free civilians who form the various state's volunteer citizen militias, as defined by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution -- have the right to keep and bear the arms necessary for the maintenance of said well-regulated militia, when called upon by the state or federal governments.

That's the "Truth" of the Constitution, both in my opinion, which means nothing, and the U.S. Supreme and Federal Circuit Courts, which means everything.

Here, educate yourself. Read United States v. Miller. The majority decision goes to huge lengths to explain the exact historical context by which they arrived at their ruling.

"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To 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.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

-- cont.

.

[Sonart]

.

cont....

Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out 'that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom' and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: 'Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.' 'In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.'

'The American Colonies In The 17th Century', Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England-

'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts).'

Also 'Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.'

The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784 (Laws and Resolves 1784, c. 55, pp. 140, 142), provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should 'contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, ....' Also, 'That every non-commissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm, &c.'

By an Act passed April 4, 1786 (Laws 1786, c. 25), the New York Legislature directed: 'That every able-bodied Male Person, being a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are herein after excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. ... That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; ....'

The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening's Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared: 'The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.'

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that 'All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,' with certain exceptions, 'shall be inrolled or formed into companies.' 'There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months.'

Also that 'Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: ... every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges; and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.'

Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.

In the margin some of the more important opinions and comments by writers are cited. 3 We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings."

.

[Deadeye]

Certainly the USSC is overstepping it's constitutional role when we find that after the consider a case we discover that a law has been passed.

In Brown vs. the Board of Education and Roe v. Wade somehow a law was passed, even if not technically so, the results were the same.

I want to see the USSC to understand that their role is to advise Congress as to the constitutionality of a proposed law and not to admonish them with the task to pass a certain law that they deem is required by the Constitution.

Fact is today we have courts taking the role of the Legislation. This is wrong. As we all know the Democrat Party has used to courts to legislate because they have not been able to pass laws in the normal and proscribed way.

[Apeman81]

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. “
This amendment is written in the Absolute Ablative form. Of Latin derivation, this form can be confusing.

The term Absolute (Latin ab-solutus "set apart from") is in Latin the core of the concept. The Ablative Absolute clause is used to punctuate an established fact that precedes the main clause.

In this case, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”, the clause “set apart from” the main clause is the established fact. Established by the delegations to the Continental Congress in their responses to the Congress on the establishment and ratification of the Constitution. Taking their cue from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that allows Congress to “raise and Support” armies, but for a period of no greater than 2 years. They agreed that a standing, federal army posed a serious threat to the freedom of the several states. To this day, the Congress must re-appropriate the U.S. Army every two years.

Another thing to note about the ablative absolute “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”: The subject of an Ablative Absolute clause cannot ever be the subject of the sentence

That is an iron-clad rule in the grammar books. Why? Because the clause accompanies something else, and cannot be the subject of the main clause which it accompanies. In short it cannot accompany itself.

The District of Columbia Circuit in examining the "provision's second comma," noted that the grammar of the amendment "divides the Amendment into two clauses. The "first is prefatory, and the second operative.” In so doing, they correctly read the ablative absolute “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” as a preface to the main and operative part of the amendment, the “meat” of it, as it were, that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

You may note that when properly read, the 2nd amendment requires no explanation as to why the word “people” in this amendment would be a specialized, selective subgroup when in the 1st, 4th and 10th amendments the word “people” means the individual.

Later we can discus the meaning of “infringed”.

[Sonart]

.

Deadeye, if a citizen files a suit in court declaring that a certain law is a violation their constitutional rights, the court is obliged to hear that case and rule on it. And if that case is successfully appealed up the chain, then each lower court, and eventually the Supreme Court, is also obliged to hear the arguments and decide.

That's their job, what they do. Most often these are challenges to new laws... for example, California's recent referendum passed law prohibiting gay marriage. Gay marriage, having never been an issue before, had never been addressed. The new law was challenged as a violation of individual rights guaranteed in the California constitution, and the California Supreme Court found that, yep, by golly, it WAS a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal rights under the law.

Some challenges are to old laws that "Traditional Values" had blinded Americans to the fact that they were actually unconstitutional. Plessy v. Ferguson was the standing precedent that held that segregated schools were constitutional, because Americans were blinded by the "Traditional Value" that racial discrimination was perfectly acceptable. Bown v. Board ruled that, sorry folks, but that simply isn't correct.

Likewise, Lawrence v. Texas reversed the existing "Traditional Value" that allowed states to make homosexuality a crime, which actually denied gays their rights to privacy and equal protection.

Finally, other rulings involve areas that had, for whatever reasons of changing culture, simply never been addressed. Miranda v. Arizona ruled that someone being arrested had to actually know what their legal rights were. Roe v. Wade ruled on an issue that had never been contested... a woman's right to her own body.

And so it it with U.S. v Miller and the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Courts had never definitively defined 2nd Amendment rights one way or another. Previous USSC 2nd Amendment rulings, U.S. v Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886) and Miller v. Texas (1894) never adequately ruled on whether individuals did or didn't have a Constitutional right to own a gun, although they all leaned more towards the idea of a "Collective" right rather than an individual right.

Even U.S. v Miller was somewhat fuzzy in some ways, but what they did state, and explain in historical context, was that the 2nd Amendment was about arming a well-regulated militia, not about owning guns.

And so it's been for the last 70 years. The Court wasn't "making law". They were doing their jobs, ruling on challenges brought before them on how they believed an ambiguous Constitution applied to specific, contemporary issues.

When you whine about their "making law", all you whining is that you simply didn't like the conclusions they came to in the course of doing their jobs.

.

[Apeman81]

Five of the state ratification conventions for the U.S. Constitution made explicit requests or demands for the protection of rights to keep and bear arms. Four states also clearly defined what a well-regulated militia consists of "the body of the people trained to arms" or "the body of the people capable of bearing arms". Four states attached proposed bills of rights to their approvals of the Constitution, the fifth, North Carolina, refused to approve the Constitution and submitted a bill of unalienable rights of the people that must be protected before they would sign.[121]

New Hampshire, June 21, 1788
"XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion."

Virginia, June 27, 1788
"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state:"

The Virginia Ratification Convention Committee that produced Virginia's proposed bill of rights included James Madison, Patrick Henry, George Mason, James Monroe and John Marshall.

New York, July 26, 1788
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."

North Carolina, August 1, 1788
"17. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state;"
North Carolina ratified the constitution on November 21, 1789, after Congress approved the Bill of Rights and submitted them to the states for ratification.

Rhode Island, May 29, 1790
"XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state;"

Food for thought concernig what the founders intended.

[Apeman81]

Having demonstrated that the intent of the founders when writing the 2nd amendment is up to interpretation, and having seen that throughout history courts have interpreted it in varying ways, and knowing that case before the court will deal directly with the issue of whether or not the people as individuals can be outright denied the right to keep and bear arms, perhaps it is time to remove the court from the equation.

I’d like to address a central issue. Why should the individual be denied the right to keep and bear arms?

It is clear that a firearm is an inanimate tool. We know from life experience that a firearm, like anything else man uses, can be used for a variety of purposes. Firearms are used millions of time daily. Target practice and hunting uses are among the most common. Millions of Americans carry a weapon with them every day as a means of protection. Collections, displays, exhibits; the peaceful uses of firearms are by far the most common.

It is only those few uses of a firearm that are violent in nature that give pause. It is to them that I direct my argument.

Criminal use guns to harm victims. Citizens use guns to protect themselves and other from being harmed as victims. This happens every day throughout the country. The evidence for both instances is readily available. (I discount the uses of firearms by government agencies as the act with the authority of the state, which criminal and citizens do not.)

Demonstrably, the firearm as a tool is neutral, being use to harm as well as protect.

So why should the citizens be denied the right to keep and bear arms?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman Five of the state ratification conventions for the U.S. Constitution made explicit requests or demands for the protection of rights to keep and bear arms. Four states also clearly defined what a well-regulated militia consists of "the body of the people trained to arms" or "the body of the people capable of bearing arms". Four states attached proposed bills of rights to their approvals of the Constitution, the fifth, North Carolina, refused to approve the Constitution and submitted a bill of unalienable rights of the people that must be protected before they would sign.[121]

Thank you for confirming my argument, Apeman. States demanded the right to bear arms in order to maintain trained militias. The result culminated with Article 1, Section 8, which defined a well-regulated militia, and the 2nd Amendment, which stated that "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be impinged"...

...just as I've been arguing.

"XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion."

Alas, not included in the U.S. Constitution.

Virginia, June 27, 1788 "17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state:"

Sounds like a variation of the 2nd Amendment, don't you think? The people have the right to bear arms.... in order to have well-regulated militia.

New York, July 26, 1788 "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."

Same dang thing...

Citizens can keep and bear arms <----------> a well-regulated militia. The two things never seem to be mentioned seperately, do they?

North Carolina, August 1, 1788 "17. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state;"

And once again... Citizens can keep and bear arms <----------> a well-regulated militia.

Rhode Island, May 29, 1790 "XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state;"

And yet again.

I would think the point would be making itself obvious, Apeman. They all saw a direct connection between civilian citizens keeping and bearing arms for service in volunteer citizen militias that they felt were necessary for state security.

How plain does it have to be?

Quote by: Apeman Having demonstrated that the intent of the founders when writing the 2nd amendment is up to interpretation,

LOLOLOL!!! Oh, you did indeed demonstrate the intent of the founders, Apeman, just in the exact opposite of what you intended.

Quote by: Apeman I’d like to address a central issue. Why should the individual be denied the right to keep and bear arms?

Hmmm, let's see.

Because they're extremely deadly weapons that have proven to be a threat to the health and safety of the community.

Quote by: Apeman It is clear that a firearm is an inanimate tool.

Correction: it is a 'weapon', invented and designed for only one thing, to kill from a distance.

tool -- 1. an implement, esp. one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file, for performing or facilitating mechanical operations.

weapon -- 1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.

Big difference.

Collections, displays, exhibits; the peaceful uses of firearms are by far the most common.

That's nice, but they aren't why guns exist -- (not to mention that I question your contention that the are "by far the most common") -- and you're apparently demanding that Americans continue to pay among the highest costs in blood, per capita, in the civilized world...

...all so a few rich collectors can enjoy their little pastime?

You might wanna recheck exactly where your moral compass is pointed, Apeman.

Quote by: Apeman Demonstrably, the firearm as a tool is neutral, being use to harm as well as protect.

And once again, since America has far more firearms per capita than most civilized countries and simultaneously has far more gun deaths per capita than most civilized countries, I think it's logically fair to assume that, while guns may occassionally save lives, on the whole they mostly cost lives.

.

[Apeman81]

You clearly have made up your mind and do not wish to examine your decision.

I included the numerous examples of the original verbiage to demonstrate the founder’s thoughts behind this portion of the Bill Of Rights that lead to the 2nd amendment.

First, that “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms”. Second, that “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state:" You’ll note that in neither statement was there any qualifier that the first complete statement was dependent upon the following statement. Yet you find them inexorably linked. So be it. Enjoy.

“Because they're extremely deadly weapons that have proven to be a threat to the health and safety of the community.”

The corollary of this assertion is that they have proven to be an effective method of protecting the health and safety of the community. You simply ignore the yin to you your yang. Convenient for bluster, but does little to bolster a point of view.

“And once again, since America has far more firearms per capita than most civilized countries and simultaneously has far more gun deaths per capita than most civilized countries, I think it's logically fair to assume that, while guns may occassionally save lives, on the whole they mostly cost lives.”

In 2005 there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S: that’s a 10.32 per 100000
• 12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
• 17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths),
• 789 unintentional shootings, 330 from legal intervention and 221 from undetermined intent (5% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2008.


More people die in car accidents than in shootings (15.5 automobile related deaths per 100,000 in 2005) . Even leaving in the 55% of gun related deaths by suicide! If total deaths were the leading factor in outlawing a device, you better buy a horse.

Besides, you seem consumed with how many deaths firearms lead to, you spout statistics and quote studies, yet you entire acknowledgement of a firearm’s ability to save lives is a throwaway line for which you provide no evidence.

“while guns may occassionally save lives, on the whole they mostly cost lives”

In his books Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America and Targeting Guns, Kleck reports that firearms are used defensively 2.5 millions times per year, dwarfing offensive uses by criminals. Kleck says that 25 to 75 lives are saved by guns for every life lost by a gun. The medical costs saved by the defensive use of guns are 15 times greater than the costs caused by criminal use of firearms, according to Kleck.

Lott reports in his book, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws that neither state waiting periods nor the Brady Law are associated with a reduction in crime rates. However, laws that permit the carrying of concealed weapons are associated with a 69 percent decrease in death rate from public, multiple shootings such as those that occurred in Jonesboro, Arkansas and Columbine High School

While you are free to refute these two gentlemen, I at least offer more than nothing by way of explanation of my belief that guns present as much benefit to society as they do a threat.

[Deadeye]

Gosh, Apeman81 you are really good!

The fellow who wrote "More Guns, Less Crime.." said that he started out to write a book supporting a reduction in gun ownership, but as he researched he discovered the statistics as you reported them and therefore, changed the thesis of his book.

Then he probably went out and bought a gun.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman I included the numerous examples of the original verbiage to demonstrate the founder’s thoughts behind this portion of the Bill Of Rights that lead to the 2nd amendment.

Yes, Apeman, I know.. I can read.

What I was trying to point out to you was that the "original verbiage" almost unanimously echoed that of the 2nd Amendment itself, that the right to keep and bear arms is ALWAYS DIRECTLY CONNECTED to the need for a well-trained, volunteer civilian militia.

Sheesh, talk about not wanting to see.

Quote by: Apeman First, that “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms”. Second, that “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state:" You’ll note that in neither statement was there any qualifier that the first complete statement was dependent upon the following statement. Yet you find them inexorably linked.

They are NOT seperate, Apeman. Look for yourself...

"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state:"

The phrases are seperated by a 'semicolon', not a 'period'. They are linked!

1. It (semicolon) binds two sentences more closely than they would be if separated by a full stop/period. It often replaces a conjunction such as and or but. Writers might consider this appropriate where they are trying to indicate a close relationship between two sentences, or a 'run-on' in meaning from one to the next; they might not want the connection to be broken by the abrupt use of a period.

You can't see it because it's YOU that doesn't understand 18th century "verbiage", not me.

Quote by: Apeman Besides, you seem consumed with how many deaths firearms lead to, you spout statistics and quote studies, yet you entire acknowledgement of a firearm’s ability to save lives is a throwaway line for which you provide no evidence.

{{SIGH}} You keep saying this, over and over and over again. Firearms save lives. And yet somehow you keep missing the obvious that's staring you directly in the face. To wit:

IF THAT'S TRUE, then why isn't the United States, the modern nation with the LEAST gun control and the MOST FIREARMS per capita, also the safest, instead of being the exact opposite, the most murderous?

You can SAY guns save lives all you like, Apeman, but it doesn't make it true. The FACTS show that the exact opposite is true,that more guns simply mean more deaths. That's why I keep spouting those figures, hoping that the reality will somehow dawn on you, rather than your dreamy myth.

Quote by: Apeman More people die in car accidents than in shootings (15.5 automobile related deaths per 100,000 in 2005) . Even leaving in the 55% of gun related deaths by suicide! If total deaths were the leading factor in outlawing a device, you better buy a horse.

Oh for gawds sake,stop it, Apeman. I already went through this nonsense with Morgan Freeman.

How many times a week do you operate your car? On average, I drive my car a minimum of twice a day, 365 days a year. And how many times a month do you operate a firearm? Me, I've operated my Baretta maybe half a dozen times in 5 years. I can sit on a bluff overlooking I-5 and in one late afternoon hour watch more automobiles drive by than the number of firearms operated throughout the entire county in a month. I actually did the math once, figuring out the total number of gun crimes, the number of defensive gun uses, the number of hunters in the U.S. and an estimate of how often they go hunting, the number of gun ranges, indoor and outdoor, and the average number of people who use them per month.

And based on usage (whether you want ot measure it in hours of use or the number of times operated) automobiles are literally thousands of times safer than firearms. You're comparing apples to bullfrogs.

Quote by: Apeman However, laws that permit the carrying of concealed weapons are associated with a 69 percent decrease in death rate from public, multiple shootings such as those that occurred in Jonesboro, Arkansas and Columbine High School

I call bullshIt. Prove it.

And show me a reduction in crime based on gun carry laws that didn't ALSO correspond to a national reduction in violent crime.

.

[Apeman81]

Sonart. You assertion was that the number of per capita deaths per year was a reason to prohibit the people from keping and bearing arms. You did not mention a per use ratio, or hours employed, you mentioned per capita deaths. Period

You cannot unhoist your canard by changing the variables.

You see a firearm as a weapon of death and destruction, negating entirely the hundreds of millions of times they are used yearly for the enjoyment of target shooting and hunting, not to mention the million or more times they are employed to protect from harm visited upon the population that stands naked before the onslaught of the criminal element but for their right to keep and bears arms.

I see no further reason to debate as the battle lines are established.

I'll leave you with this bit of encouraging news.

When seconds count, help is only minutes away.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Deadeye Gosh, Apeman81 you are really good! The fellow who wrote "More Guns, Less Crime.." said that he started out to write a book supporting a reduction in gun ownership, but as he researched he discovered the statistics as you reported them and therefore, changed the thesis of his book. Then he probably went out and bought a gun.

Thanks.

I think that's why for so many, the conclusion having been made based upon the emotional ("Look at how many people are killed by guns!"), that an examination of the yin to their yang is an absolute non sequitor.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman You see a firearm as a weapon of death and destruction, negating entirely the hundreds of millions of times they are used yearly for the enjoyment of target shooting and hunting, not to mention the million or more times they are employed to protect from harm visited upon the population that stands naked before the onslaught of the criminal element but for their right to keep and bears arms.

And you would have Americans continue to pay among the world's highest per capita cost in blood so that you good 'ol boys can enjoy your pastimes.

Attaboy, Apeman.

Oh, and those millions of defensive uses? Just a tad exaggerated.

Quote by: Apeman When seconds count, help is only minutes away.

I own a gun, Apeman. I've never said I wanted to outlaw guns, I just don't see it as a "Right" and I don't see any reason or need to easily acquire 20 Uzis.

But regarding your scare tactic, I'm really not the least bit worried... my first and most effective line of home defense is my 3 dogs.

Quote by: Apeman Thanks. I think that's why for so many, the conclusion having been made based upon the emotional ("Look at how many people are killed by guns!"), that an examination of the yin to their yang is an absolute non sequitor.

WOW... a BOOK! And yet not one of you can seem to address my one and only point. Look in your BOOK and see if he knows.

Once again...IF guns make you safer, then WHY, in a nation with more guns per capita than almost any other, are we not the SAFEST civilized nation on earth instead of the exact opposite, the most MURDEROUS civilized nation on earth?

Take your time, read your BOOK through carefully, and get back to me with an answer. Ok?

.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Sonart . I call bullshIt. Prove it. And show me a reduction in crime based on gun carry laws that didn't ALSO correspond to a national reduction in violent crime. .

Sonart, now you have fallen into a "yes he did, no he didn't" argument. Read the books that Apeman quoted from. Decide for yourself if their premis is valid or not.

Then after you have done that reel back in and I'll advise you what kind of gun would best suit your needs.

I think you are stubborn beyond reason. .

[Apeman81]

I chose to respond to these two points as they are arguably “new” to our discussion.

“I own a gun, Apeman. I've never said I wanted to outlaw guns, I just don't see it as a "Right”.

If you do not see it as a right, then you may not see it as an option. There are a number of groups that have as their stated goal the removal of guns from the hands of the citizens. They do not see it as a right either.

“IF guns make you safer, then WHY, in a nation with more guns per capita than almost any other, are we not the SAFEST civilized nation on earth instead of the exact opposite, the most MURDEROUS civilized nation on earth?”

A safe nation? So the only factor that defines a nation as safe is the per capita murder rate? What of threat of invasion? Starvation? Abuses of the person by the state? The oppression of freedom?

Accepting you flawed definition of safe, again you consider the 13000+ criminal murders by firearm per year the only factor in defining safe. You discount the use of a firearm in the prevention of a murder completely. Without examining this, you cannot logically assert whether the ownership of firearms has an overall positive or negative effect.

The impetus for criminal action in this nation is certainly not created nor amplified by the presence of firearms. This is the most heterogeneous of the “civilized” nations. Imbued with greater freedoms and greater riches, and influenced by more cultures, the impetus for criminal action is unique among the world.

As for “more guns per capita”, you know as well as I that this is a meaningless data point. If 1 person has 10 guns in his home, and 9 do not, then it is meaningless to adjudicate the safety of the 9 homes with regards to what is not within them. A gun that is not present cannot make one safe.

And as for your “more guns per capita”, do you know if that counts each of the hundreds of guns found in thousands of stores across the nation?

Meaningless data does not contribute to accurate assessment.

[Apeman81]

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

For all who care to see what the several states say about bearing arms for personal defense.

A few to set the tone.

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Alaska: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).

[Individual right explicitly protected; provision enacted in 1994, when the individual right to bear arms was generally understood as aimed at protecting self-defense.]

Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Art. II, § 5 (enacted 1868, art. I, § 5).
1836: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. II, § 21.

[Self-defense right protected, Arkansas Game and Fish Com'n v. Murders, 327 Ark. 426 (1997); Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557 (1878).]

California: No provision.

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Deadeye Sonart, now you have fallen into a "yes he did, no he didn't" argument. Read the books that Apeman quoted from. Decide for yourself if their premis is valid or not.

Yeah, sure thing, Deadeye, except since this is asking considerably more than most posts, why don't you read mine first.

The Politics of Gun Control - Robert J. Spitzer



When you're done, that'll be a sign of good faith, and I promise I'll read Kleck's book.

In the meantime, why not just answer my simple question?

Quote by: Apeman If you do not see it as a right, then you may not see it as an option. There are a number of groups that have as their stated goal the removal of guns from the hands of the citizens. They do not see it as a right either.

Yeah, so what? And there's others who want to make gun ownership mandatory. As it turns out, I'm not either one of them, so perhaps you can address what I am arguing and not what I'm not arguing.

Quote by: Apeman A safe nation? So the only factor that defines a nation as safe is the per capita murder rate?

Because we're specifically talking about guns, Apeman. Duh.

So as I was saying, Gun lovers keep insisting guns make us safer, and yet this nation, which is awash in guns, kills more people with g