2nd Amendment(Gun Rights) Logic,Rationale, and Background

[thegodfather]

I am creating this thread to explain the 2nd Amendment to those who understand it not. This is the PROPER venue to do so, as opposed to a thread mourning the loss of children from an act of pure evil. Using an extremely tragic event to try and advanced ones own agenda either pro/con is SHAMEFUL. So my thread is going to do two unique things. One, I will not be referencing the most recent atrocities and piggyback my argument on the backs of those events. Two, I will not be citing statistics, as everyone has their 'own' statistics, and generally, we know that statistics are all in how you interpret them. Rather, I will be using logic and history, as my primary tools of explaining the 2nd amendment to those who seem to think its obsolete, barbaric, archaic, or somehow responsible for the evil doings in our country.

Before explaining my specific points, I will explain WHAT our freedoms in the US Constitution do for us. They are called 'negative freedoms,' that means that the government doesn't "give" you those freedoms, it doesn't require any action on it's part to provide them. The government cannot give you any of the rights in the Bill of Rights because they are viewed as inalienable, endowed to you by your creator (whatever diety you may prescribe to), has bestowed upon you those rights, and therefore it is not the governments place to give you something which you already posess. The Bill of Rights is a document that is a RESTRAINT on government, it tells government what it CAN NOT take away or do.

1.) "Firearms if banned completely, would eliminate gun violence. If firearms were not available, then criminals wouldn't have firearms."
Well, illicit recreational drugs are 100% completely prohibited in all 50 states, and criminals still continue to import those substances into our country by the metric ton each year. As history has shown, a demand for something will always create a supply, and no matter how many Pablo Escobars you arrest or kill, there is always someone who sees a large profit motive and steps up to take his place. There is no shortage of drug mules at the borders willing to risk substantial jail time and loss of quality of life for the profits that it brings. An outright ban or prohibition on firearms would yield comparable results, as outright bans on anything has shown, throughout thousands of years of human history. I am not even addressing the unfathomable number of personally owned weapons already in circulation and in the hands of law abiding and law breaking citizens. If such a hypothetical ban were to be instilled, it might be 3-4 generations before it saw any noticeable results. As to the second point, the majority of law abiding citizens, having many things in their life to lose, would refrain from purchasing firearms on the black market, while criminals who by nature disregard laws, would indeed continue to purchase firearms illegally. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no legal obligation to protect you (i.e.- they are immuned from civil suits for response times being too slow, or not protecting your wife from being brutalized in a parking garage). We know, that the large majority of police is reactionary, they respond to crimes as they are happening or after they have happened.

2. "You crazy people who think owning small arms will do anything to protect you from the most powerful military in the world with drones and F22's are batshit crazy. You could do nothing if the US government decided tomorrow to turn itself into the Third Reich"

There are a few hundred thousand Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who would probably tell you different. We have superior weaponry, tactics, logistics, training, and yet we could not effectively control any one piece of land without unsustainable committments of men and machinery. Both of these are in countries that are the size of only one or two of our states, of which we have 50. The total combined armed forces number around 3,000,000 men and women, not counting ancillary support staff, the intelligence communities, etc. Additionally, I would like to think that our all volunteer military would not simply 'follow orders' of a commander-in-chief who wanted to turn America into the second coming of the Third Reich. However, for arguments sake, lets say that our brothers, sisters, husbands, & wives, all decided it would be a good idea to oppress our fellow countrymen. The aforementioned conflicts we were involved in took place on land masses that are 1/48th the size of our country, and used often times 500-1000lb bombs would have to be called in to dispatch 20-30 poorly armed insurgents, versus a convoy of 100-300 highly trained soldiers, sailors, or marines, with the most modern weapons on the face of the Earth at their behest. Multiply this out over an entire country, and the logistics of occupying and subjugating a population becomes appearent. Any military historian can tell you, its not TAKING the land which is the hard part, its HOLDING it. We took hills in Vietnam regularly, but we could not hold the ground for very long. Germany in WWII took huge swaths of land with ease, but in only 4 years they could not hold onto it. The lands that they took over had an extremely extremely low number of personal gun ownership, and yet there were still resistances in those countries which slowed the German war effort. History shows that insurgencys are unwinable.

3.)"Multiple Attackers"

All forms of less-lethal self-defense are meaningless when faced with multiple attackers. Even the most highly trained, strong, and athletic man if faced with 3,4, or more attackers is likely to be overcome, subdued, and if they so desire, killed. Guns were not called the great equalizer for no appearent reason. A man or woman, when faced with multiple attackers, either armed or unarmed, stands a 'fighting chance,' a substantially better chance, if that person is armed with a firearm. They stand a better chance against these attackers often without having to fire a shot, as the attackers if not carrying firearms themselves are deterred by the threat of a firearm. Perhaps I'll cite one statistic in the entire article, as it's from a most reliable source, the FBI's national crime database. Based on the number of police reports compiled, it's office of national criminal statistics estimates that a firearm saves between 1,500,000 - 2,000,000 lives per year, and in 98% of those cases the firearm does not have to be discharged, the threat of deadly force is enough to stop the attack.

4.) "Females, the elderly, handicapped, and weaker individuals"

Even in a 1 on 1 situation, persons who are weak, old, or have some type of physical handicap face little chance of fighting off a determined stronger attacker, with no weapons involved. Firearms allow a petite female to stand a fighting chance against a much larger and stronger opponnent in any of a million imagineable situations. Firearms allow a 70 year old grandmother or grandfather who is frail to fight back against a young, strong, virile attacker. Firearms allow people with physical handicaps, those confined to wheelchairs, missing an appendage, or other such physical handicaps (not mental handicaps) of defending themselves with GREAT EFFECT against a determined attacker. This is why those of us on the side of legal gun ownership, and not just ownership alone, but the right to CARRY that weapon about their person during any number of daily tasks is a right we are fighting hard for in the legislature and the courts. We are one step closer to that goal in a recent ruling in "Michael Moore, Mary E. Shepard, et.al VS. Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois, et. al."

5.) "You people think that if you were in one of these mass shooting situations you could actually make a difference. What if the attacker gets your weapon from you, or what if the attacker ________"

Ok, those things can and do happen. Although I'd argue in many of the most recent attacks, the attackers have had plenty of their own weaponry and adding one more firearm into the mix nets little results. Anyway, your arguments are predicated upon a substantial amount of 'what if's,' and propaganda that has been carefully doctored by the Brady Campaign where it states "Those who own guns are twice as likely to have those guns used against them," or some such utter nonsense. So lets look to a few syllogisms to prove this point.

"In mass shootings where everyone is unarmed, no one stands a chance against the attacker. All unarmed people stand no chance."

So, if people have little to no chance in a well planned mass shooting by a determined attacker, what more harm can come from a 1% of the victims carrying a firearm. I use 1%, because in all states with "Shall Issue" conceal&carry permits, that is the percentage of the states total population which actually chooses to go through the training class, pay for a permit, and purchase a firearm. Would you not believe that a 1% chance is better than a 0% chance? If that citizen who has a firearm about their person can disable or incapacitate the attacker, they have saved lives, the number of which is unquantifiable because we do not have the ability to see the future. What we CAN be sure of however, is that in cases where none of the victims are carrying a firearm, their chances of living are up to the whims of a crazed lunatic, the response time of police, and other intangible factors. What is wrong with empowering people to take control&responsibility of their own lives?

6.) "Resisting someone armed is more likely to provoke them to hurt/kill you"

Ok, this is probably true. However, how many links to videos do I have to post where an attacker walks into a store or some sort, and without any provocation, any hint of resistance, outright kills the clerk/attendant/employee? Those videos exist, and those are just instances where a surveillance camera was present, how many other instances of violent crime resulted in an attacker shooting his victim without provocation? It's not a number which is likely quantifiable, however, do you really want to trust your fate to the whims of a crazy person? This is very similar to my point in number 5. Why should you give 100% of the power your attacker? Why should you live or die based upon the mood of a criminal? If you don't want to put up a fight, thats your choice, you can play the odds, they are probably no different than an armed citizen being accosted by a violent criminal, however the real point is that the victim at least HAS THAT CHOICE. If you want to choose to do nothing, and let the sociopathic criminal decide whether you get to go home to your loved ones, see your kids soccer games, enjoy many more Christmas's, etc, you have that right. But please, why do you want to take away MY right to choose to take that power back? Why do you want to try to pass legislation which will not even allow me to make that choice to fight back, and actually have a chance?

You can watch the surveillance video, as well as see pictures of this beautiful woman whos life was ended for no appearent reason. I particularly like the comments of the family members in the comment section.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...rder-of-clerk/

A robber stormed into the store on Sunday afternoon. In a surveillance video, he is seen wearing a mask and a dark hoodie, jumping over the counter to steal the cash register.
Judi Simpson-Beaver was shot and killed during a robbery at the convenience store where she worked in Merrillville, Ind., on March 4, 2012. (Family Photo)
Behind the counter, clerk Judi Simpson-Beaver was working alone. Police said she complied with Blue’s demands, but he shot and killed her anyway.
“This was a heinous crime. I mean, she did everything she was supposed to do. She complied,” Merrillville Chief of Detectives Jim Lilley said. “This was pretty much ruthless for him to do what he did.”

One more for good measure...

This guy decides to shoot the clerk as soon as he enters the store without demanding any money yet, and also shoots at the customers as well. Lucky for both parties that he was a very bad shot. It was simply luck. But you would deny these people the right to impact their future!

Police say the two men came in and shot the clerk right away before grabbing money from the cash register. One of the suspects also fired shots in the direction of customers, but no one else was hurt.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/04/2...ry-into-store/

7.) At this point, I'd like to open up the floor for any questions, or other arguments you may want to advance, and I'll respond in kind. Please form it in quotations, as either a statement or a question, succint and to the point, 1-2 sentences. I believe I have presented reasoned, logical arguments for the ownership&carrying of firearms by private citizens who go through the appropriate processes layed out in each state. I have intentionally left out the constitutional arguments, because its unlikely anyone else on the board is trained in constitutional law and interpretation, ergo those arguments would be fruitless. Additionally, I have left out statistics, save for 2, which are unbiased, undisputed, and not the crux of any of the points.

[Euroholic]

All i can say is you americans have to many rights which from my point of view makes you guys think you can do what you want. Im generalizing here. But in this day and age unless you hunt or are a drug dealer a civilian does not need a firearm.

[likelifting]

The Gov't would have as much luck ridding the country of guns as it did alcohol during prohibition.

[gixxerboy1]

The government can not take away your inalienable rights. Do you feel you can loose them because of your own doing or health? That is your not mentally fit or have a history of violence you give up that right?

[MuscleInk]

All i can say is you americans have to many rights which from my point of view makes you guys think you can do what you want. Im generalizing here. But in this day and age unless you hunt or are a drug dealer a civilian does not need a firearm.

Interesting, so it's permissible to arm someone selling illicit and dangerous substances (potentially to our children), but not the tax paying citizens?

Also by your logic, I doubt any of the non drug dealing criminal types would agree to lay down their weapons. So once again, hunters, drug dealers, and criminals are justified in carrying weapons?

Anyone taking steroids illegally is by definition committing a crime. So I guess it's okay for steroid users to carry guns - or at least, those selling steroids, by your rationale.

[likelifting]

Absolutely. Criminals should NOT own a gun. Mentally unstable folk should not own a gun. Get that under control and we probably will have gone a long way to solving this problem.

[likelifting]

All i can say is you americans have to many rights which from my point of view makes you guys think you can do what you want. Im generalizing here. But in this day and age unless you hunt or are a drug dealer a civilian does not need a firearm.

I honestly don't think we are as free as everyone seems to think.

[MuscleInk]

Absolutely. Criminals should NOT own a gun. Mentally unstable folk should not own a gun. Get that under control and we probably will have gone a long way to solving this problem.

Lol....."mentally unstable folk". More than half the population is mentally unstable. They just don't know it! Lol

[gixxerboy1]

Lets not get GF's thread off track. I really would like to see him address some questions

[likelifting]

Lets not get GF's thread off track. I really would like to see him address some questions

Agree. I'll be reading though.

[DanB]

All i can say is you americans have to many rights which from my point of view makes you guys think you can do what you want. Im generalizing here. But in this day and age unless you hunt or are a drug dealer a civilian does not need a firearm.

gota agree, you in europe guessing by the name? different cultures and from it different mentalitys i suppose

[Sgt. Hartman]

Most reasonable people wouldn't have the 2nd amendment abolished so to me the 2 questions are what is the criteria for someone having to forfeit their 2nd amendment rights, and where is the line drawn as to what is considered a firearm?

[warmouth]

Ok, so this isnt a question, but it may lead to one. I am a law abiding citizen. I carry. I have a carry permit. I have no criminal background whatsoever. I carry everywhere I am allowed. I refrain from carrying where I am not supposed to. Places such as resteraunts that sell alcohol, bars or clubs, church, and the likes. But here is my thing. If I am in the situation, like the colorado massacre or the colorado movie theater shooting, I would be glad I had my weapon, as I wouldnt have thought twice about using it. I would hate more than anything to take the life of another, but I would do it in the blink of an eye if I had the means.
Now, to a felon(a person not allowed to carry), and who is still "above the law", they would not care about when and where to carry. I am not saying ALL felons, just the ones who are still involved in criminal activity. If we were to allow the government to amend the 2nd amendment, where would it stop? If they were to change it, what would stop them from amanding anything they wanted to? As a citizen of the US, we have the right to own firearms, as mostly impart as a protection from a tyrannical government. I think we can all agree that there has been this tyrannical shift over the last decade, no doubt. We cant allow the government to grow and make decisions for us. As armed citizens, there would be less of these crazy debacles, IMO. I think the more people carrying, the more criminals will think twice before doing something so stupid.
As for the countless media source claming the Constitution was written at a time where there were no womens rights, slavery, and the general time that doesnt apply to us now, they should seriously think before they speak. If the government takes our right from owning firearms, why would they not be able to ban freedom of speech? Or any freedoms we have? The media wouldnt like that so much, right?
Anyways, there is always pros and cons and disagreements, but it is our right, and has been since our country was founded. We are priviledged to own guns, as well as all of our other freedoms we sometimes take for granted. I dont want our country to shift to total government control. I think it is heading in that direction, but we can stop it. We are the people, and the government works for us, not us for them. Just my little rant. Euphoric is clueless.

[Euroholic]

Someone answer me this. If i went on on a shooting spree in a place were your not aloud to carry a weapon. And someone there was illegally carrying a gun and they shot me would that person be charged and sent to prision?


Warmouth no offenses mate but you sound crazy that you think your government is trying to control you haha. Australia has way more government controls than your usa. Our customs are strict our gun laws are tuff. We have no bill of rights or your precious freedom of speech laws. But we can still pretty much to a degree do and say what we like. Your government does not want to take away your rights the poit of a government is to look after the people that voted them in. Its never a perfect system but its better than a single party dictator.

[Lunk1]

Someone answer me this. If i went on on a shooting spree in a place were your not aloud to carry a weapon. And someone there was illegally carrying a gun and they shot me would that person be charged and sent to prision?
Warmouth no offenses mate but you sound crazy that you think your government is trying to control you haha. Australia has way more government controls than your usa. Our customs are strict our gun laws are tuff. We have no bill of rights or your precious freedom of speech laws. But we can still pretty much to a degree do and say what we like. Your government does not want to take away your rights the poit of a government is to look after the people that voted them in. Its never a perfect system but its better than a single party dictator.

I mention the race only because it was of course an issue after it happened! The store had several customers and the clerk. The man was prased for possibly saving the lives of numerous innocent ppl!

Love it!

[Euroholic]

I mention the race only because it was of course an issue after it happened! The store had several customers and the clerk. The man was prased for possibly saving the lives of numerous innocent ppl!

Love it!

[songdog]

All i can say is you americans have to many rights which from my point of view makes you guys think you can do what you want. Im generalizing here. But in this day and age unless you hunt or are a drug dealer a civilian does not need a firearm.

Yes we have those rights beacuse men and women died so we could.We chose to not have a King or Queen thats why we kicked the British out of our country.We like our rights we earned them and yes many countries maybe jealous.And we Americans love our guns! And you would be surprised wat a few guys could do if we are threatened.I guess you forgot wat happen in Nam.People fight harder when the fight is in their front yard.We have our problems here like any place else.But anyone who has fuked with us paid the price.Do yall still have nightmares of Hitler? He took your guns didnt he

[Euroholic]

Yes we have those rights beacuse men and women died so we could.We chose to not have a King or Queen thats why we kicked the British out of our country.We like our rights we earned them and yes many countries maybe jealous.And we Americans love our guns! And you would be surprised wat a few guys could do if we are threatened.I guess you forgot wat happen in Nam.People fight harder when the fight is in their front yard.We have our problems here like any place else.But anyone who has fuked with us paid the price.Do yall still have nightmares of Hitler? He took your guns didnt he

Just so you i have never met anyone who is jealous of america. I am australian we were the first to stop the japs and the germans in ww2. So no one has f***** with us also as you put it. You look at vietnam as a failure but me as a australian i look at vietnam as a success we went in there to stop the spread of conuism throught south east asia. Which we did it was limited to a small region.

And do some research about your lrrp in vietnam. Westmoreland was inspired by the australian sas efforts.

[dan991]

Most reasonable people wouldn't have the 2nd amendment abolished so to me the 2 questions are what is the criteria for someone having to forfeit their 2nd amendment rights, and where is the line drawn as to what is considered a firearm?

What is reasonable forfeiture of 2nd amendment rights? Today its being a convicted felon or being found guilty of "specified misdemeanors" such as domestic violence. I don't exactly agree with that at all. You're saying take away the rights of someone whom got drunk one night at a bar and pissed on the side of building that got caught? Or someone whom bounced a check over $100.00. Or someone whom posses anabolic steroids (and gets caught) does not retain the right to own a firearm to protect themselves and their family?

[Rwy]

I mention the race only because it was of course an issue after it happened! The store had several customers and the clerk. The man was prased for possibly saving the lives of numerous innocent ppl!

Love it!

[lovbyts]

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY That the media wont mention but you can look it up yourself.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

[thegodfather]

Count 1: All i can say is you americans have to many rights which from my point of view makes you guys think you can do what you want. Im generalizing here. But in this day and age unless you hunt or are a drug dealer a civilian does not need a firearm.

Count 1 Retort: "The United States has too many rights?"
Are you sure about that Euroholic? As I explained previously we have negative freedoms, those which the government does not give us, because they are not the governments to give. In contrast however, a county quite proximal to you, South Africa, has a constitution which guarantees a person a home, a job, healthcare, etc. Those are called 'positive freedoms,' as it requires government action in order for those freedoms to be propagated. Unfortunately, the governments means to deliver those freedoms is nill. The US Constitution is roughly 2,300 pages, the constitutions of many other countries like South Africa are 65,000+ pages. We have a Bill of Rights outlining some very specific things which protect us from our government. Additionally, as I stated previously, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that police have no fiduciary to protect a citizen, the police force is a REACTIVE force, responding to in progress, shortly after, or long after crimes are committed. Ergo, I would believe that just the opposite is true about a citizens 'need' for the most effective means of self-protection currently known to man. I'd love to have the luxury of living in your world where bad things don't happen, or at least, they happen to everyone else, but those sorts of things 'never happen to you,' right? Us stupid inbred obese yanks have a saying here, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away," and that sir, sums up the reason that personal firearms ownership is a necessity, not just in the United States, but in any land where there does not exist an omniscent police force which swoops in just prior to a violent crime like Tom Cruise in the Pre-Crime division in the Minority Report.

Count 2:Someone answer me this. If i went on on a shooting spree in a place were your not aloud to carry a weapon. And someone there was illegally carrying a gun and they shot me would that person be charged and sent to prision?

Count 2 Retort:
In the United States this is what we call 'discretion under the law.' Simply put, it would be up to the prosecuting attorney for the state in that case to decide whether the state has a greater interest in that person going to jail for committing an act that while illegal, saved lives. There have been cases such as these, and it is tantamount to the state simply declining to prosecute. It does this in many other areas, when it determines the state and the people in the state would not be best served by this.


Count 3: Warmouth no offenses mate but you sound crazy that you think your government is trying to control you haha. Australia has way more government controls than your usa. Our customs are strict our gun laws are tuff. We have no bill of rights or your precious freedom of speech laws. But we can still pretty much to a degree do and say what we like. Your government does not want to take away your rights the poit of a government is to look after the people that voted them in. Its never a perfect system but its better than a single party dictator.

Count 3 Retort: Well 'mate,' I think that you sound extremely naive if you believe that your elected government has nothing but the most pure intentions, and nothing but your best interests at heart. The Third Reich was an elected government, it quickly devolved into one of the most oppressive and brutal regimes the Earth has ever known. What EXACTLY prevents your government from instituting totalitarian policies? You already stated you dont have a Bill of Rights. What is important to understand about the United States is that it is not a democracy, it is rather a representative Republic. It uses a democratic system for elections, but it has a written Constitution and Bill of Rights, these written document prevent the government from implementing laws simply on a 51/49 vote. Pure Democracy is described as two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Our Bill of Rights establishes a number of protections that prevents the government from simply taking a vote to say, execute anyone with red hair, or allow anyones home to be searched at a police officers whim. Additionally, our constitution sets up a system of checks & balances, three competing branches of government, each with different sets of power, they compete in order to check the power of the other. We have the legislative branch(Congress), the executive branch(presidency), and the judicial branch (Supreme Court & Attorney Generals office). You'll have to excuse me when I get offended at people who suggest our 236 year old document is somehow antiquated or out of date, it may have gotten a few things wrong like slavery, but it's set up a system which has withstood the tests of time and allowed a near flawlesss handoff of power every 2,4,&6 years at the Federal level. A common fallacy is that "FREEDOM" is established, engrained, it's here to stay. But your thinking shows blatant naiveity and a lack of appreciation for history because 'FREEDOM' is a relatively NEW IDEA. For the past 4,000-5,000 years of human history, humans have ruled by Dynastic Succession, Kings, Lords, etc. Even Greeks and Romans who are considered the classical Democrats were not immuned from absolute power corrupting absolutely. Unfortunately, I am spending the bulk of my time on this thread trying to educate someone who clearly lacks a solid grasp on history, politics, or international relations. Anyway, the founding fathers of the United States recognized that while the three branches of government served as competent checks&balances, ANY institution can be corrupted (as we see with increasing activist judges), and therefore they were wise enough to put the 1st&2nd amendment, 1st and 2nd. The first amendment was to assure transparency, and the second amendment was in some peoples opinion to protect the first, but more to the point, the second amendments true purpose was to be the peoples FINAL recourse against a breakdown in the system of checks&balances in the three branches of Federal government.

Euroholic. I have tried to address your questions as best as possible. However, I have come to the conclusion that you lack the basic education regarding human history, politics, government, international relations, and other similar areas which are essential to being able to have a competent argument in this matter. This is not a personal jab at you in anyway, it is simply an observation, and I fear it will divert my attention from questions & arguments with real merit, and members who have a solid understanding of the things which are at stake here. Your arguments at face value, seem to stem from ultra-leftist mainstream media parroting. That is, that you obtain the bulk of your information on these topics from organizations which are Democratic Socialist in nature, and therefore have a hard left bias towards the issues which we are discussing here. Your viewpoints sound more like a talking points memo for ultra left wing news organizations as opposed to thoughtful reasoned arguments which you've taken the time to research and form an opinion on.

[thegodfather]

Count 1: The government can not take away your inalienable rights. Do you feel you can loose them because of your own doing or health? That is your not mentally fit or have a history of violence you give up that right?

Count 1 Retort:
Of course there are instances where it is necessary to regulate freedoms, they are not wholesale licenses to do what one pleases. Generally in the United States, we say that your inalienable rights are free to be exercised up until the point that they effect another persons inalienable rights. That is, your freedom of speech is limitless to the point of libelous or slanderous statements, where one knowingly speaks or prints mistruths which cause emotional,physical,or monetary damage to another. The same is true of the second amendment, if a person shows a pattern of being unable to exercise their right without harming others, then that right may need to be temporarily or permenantly revoked. Certainly a long history of violent acts (non-self defense) would warrant such revocations.

Count 1: What is reasonable forfeiture of 2nd amendment rights? Today its being a convicted felon or being found guilty of "specified misdemeanors" such as domestic violence. I don't exactly agree with that at all. You're saying take away the rights of someone whom got drunk one night at a bar and pissed on the side of building that got caught? Or someone whom bounced a check over $100.00. Or someone whom posses anabolic steroids (and gets caught) does not retain the right to own a firearm to protect themselves and their family?

Count 1 Retort: Certainly there are offenses which would warrant revocation of an inalienable right, as previously mentioned. Severe mental defect would be the most notable. However, with regard to revoking the rights of convicted felons, I believe that the nature of the offense must be considered. Honestly though, as a civil libertarian, I believe that if a person has been released from prison and is not on parole or probation, they have paid their entire debt to society, and ALL rights in the Bill of Rights should be COMPLETELY RESTORED. If we release a person from prison without supervision, we are saying to the public, that this person has been rehabilitated and that they are fit to live among other law abiding citizens. I see no reason then, that we should restrict God given rights from these people after paying their debt. If we do not believe that these people can function in our society with FULL RIGHTS RESTORED, then we should not be releasing them, and rather keep them imprisoned. So I would say that yes, a person who has paid their debt to society, and is seen fit to live amongst us WITHOUT supervision (parole,probation,GPS monitoring,etc) then all of their rights should be restored including that of which to own firearms, vote, and apply for meaningful employment.

I've replied to both of your questions. I'd like to see more strictly gun oriented questions, although they are valid none the less. The question of felons being able to own firearms is a great one.

[Euroholic]

I take more offence to the fact you think im a lefty. I consider my self on the right side. I understand that in my country growing up guns were not very popular were in your country guns are very popular. When we had the port arthur shooting back on 1997 the
Government brought in big gun control. Were in the usa you seem to have alot of shootings and nothing seems to get done about it. Why do so many of you have this fear the government will take away all your rights?? It will just not happen you can not use hitler as a example because those were diffrent times. The germans were angry about how ww1 played out so they were looking for someone strong to help bring there nation pride again. Hitler just took it to far.


You have a army a marine force a navy/coast guard a national gaurd A air force and milita force Plus state local a fed police which are all there to pretect you from foreign and domestic threats. Do you really think you need all these guns?? I can not understand the paranoia that so many of you think the governmet wants to take over your lifes and control you. In australia not many people have guns i think its about 1 in 20 no one here thinks the government is plotting to take over the states.


From my research the usa has about 250 million firearms so even if the government tried they would just never even get half of those. Surely you must admit that after all the shootings that have happend and will continue to happen something must be done to try and minamize the threat to the citizens.

[thegodfather]

From my research the usa has about 250 million firearms so even if the government tried they would just never even get half of those. Surely you must admit that after all the shootings that have happend and will continue to happen something must be done to try and minamize the threat to the citizens.

What you have failed to uncover in your research is that these mass shootings happen in what we call "GUN FREE ZONES." Literally, there are signs outside of certain establishments, such as movie theaters, malls, all public schools, Federal buildings, courthouses, and establishments which serve alcohol. These locations are specifically targeted by homicidal maniacs because they know that law abiding citizens who do have a conceal&carry permit are going to abide by the restriction on carrying their firearm into one of these prohibited places. Unfortunately, CRIMINALS, as stated previously, by their very nature do NOT OBEY LAWS, so what logic is there behind a sign on the front door of a building saying that this is a "GUN FREE ZONE," when an evil murderous criminal enters this establishment, whilst law abiding citizens leave their firearms in their vehicles because they want to abide by the law. These restrictions make the citizenry easy targets, studies have proven that these mass murderers TARGET areas where they know that citizens are going to be disarmed. We believe that any such establishment which bans legal conceal&carry holders from entering their premises with their firearms (as they have the right to do, since a privately owned establishment can refuse services), that those establishments should be held civilly liable in a court of law for damages that may arise out of those citizens being forced to disarm upon entering those premises, if those premises are poorly secured and a mass shooting occurs there. Do you see any counter argument to why that should not be so?

[Euroholic]

What you have failed to uncover in your research is that these mass shootings happen in what we call "GUN FREE ZONES." Literally, there are signs outside of certain establishments, such as movie theaters, malls, all public schools, Federal buildings, courthouses, and establishments which serve alcohol. These locations are specifically targeted by homicidal maniacs because they know that law abiding citizens who do have a conceal&carry permit are going to abide by the restriction on carrying their firearm into one of these prohibited places. Unfortunately, CRIMINALS, as stated previously, by their very nature do NOT OBEY LAWS, so what logic is there behind a sign on the front door of a building saying that this is a "GUN FREE ZONE," when an evil murderous criminal enters this establishment, whilst law abiding citizens leave their firearms in their vehicles because they want to abide by the law. These restrictions make the citizenry easy targets, studies have proven that these mass murderers TARGET areas where they know that citizens are going to be disarmed. We believe that any such establishment which bans legal conceal&carry holders from entering their premises with their firearms (as they have the right to do, since a privately owned establishment can refuse services), that those establishments should be held civilly liable in a court of law for damages that may arise out of those citizens being forced to disarm upon entering those premises, if those premises are poorly secured and a mass shooting occurs there. Do you see any counter argument to why that should not be so?

If what you state is true then why dont they regulate to cary guns everywere? Or like in my country were guns are ilegal in public which nearly all of the gun crime is just drug dealers killing off each orher.


And just a spit ball idea but murder is ilegal regardless of if its in a place you can not carry a gun or a place you can. I dont see how a establesment should be sued they did not want the shooting.

[lovbyts]

I take more offence to the fact you think im a lefty. I consider my self on the right side. I understand that in my country growing up guns were not very popular were in your country guns are very popular. When we had the port arthur shooting back on 1997 the
Government brought in big gun control. Were in the usa you seem to have alot of shootings and nothing seems to get done about it. Why do so many of you have this fear the government will take away all your rights?? It will just not happen you can not use hitler as a example because those were diffrent times. The germans were angry about how ww1 played out so they were looking for someone strong to help bring there nation pride again. Hitler just took it to far.


You have a army a marine force a navy/coast guard a national gaurd A air force and milita force Plus state local a fed police which are all there to pretect you from foreign and domestic threats. Do you really think you need all these guns?? I can not understand the paranoia that so many of you think the governmet wants to take over your lifes and control you. In australia not many people have guns i think its about 1 in 20 no one here thinks the government is plotting to take over the states.


From my research the usa has about 250 million firearms so even if the government tried they would just never even get half of those. Surely you must admit that after all the shootings that have happend and will continue to happen something must be done to try and minamize the threat to the citizens.

Sounds good in theory and it is how it's supposed to work but did you read my statistics above? Sometimes we need to learn from history.

[songdog]

While I think the SAS is a good outfit.Westmoreland was a body counting liar.

[Flagg]

I have a couple of questions for The Godfather.

I personally believe that guns are so enshrined in America culture, that imposing regulations on guns does nothing but drive illegal weaponary underground. So, rather than tackling the issue of guns, you guys need to look at two other things:

Turning schools into fortresses. There's a reason a nut with a gun cannot walk into a bank, prison or military compound and do that sort of thing. Because everyone know's this wont be the last time something like this happens. But then where do you draw the line? Someone see's that they cant shoot up schools any more because of enhanced lock down procedures (steel doors, bullet proof glass), that they decide a supermarket is next best thing. So do you do the same to supermarkets? What then?

There has to be a reason why this happens more in the USA than anywhere else in the world. I know there's almost as many guns as people in the States, but that can't be it. Would it be unfair to say you have a higher population of mentally unstable or desperate people than any other country in the world? Is this a failing of Government, healthcare or socialcare, because if we can sniff out terrorist cells operating on home territory, how are people that are about to go bat shit crazy, not spotted sooner?

My second point is, I don't truly believe the 2nd Amendment is a right because if owning a gun is a right, then guns should be FREE. If owning a gun is a right, why don't the poor get that right? Are their rights less important than everyone elses? How will they 'defend' themselves? Plain and simple, owning a gun is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. If it was a right, everyone should be given a free gun when they're are of a responsible age. The US is already denying this right to the poor. So it's either the US is denying a fundamental right to its own citizens, or owning a gun is not a right.

Do you truly not think the 2nd Amendment is out of place in the 21st Century? There isn't an evil British empire that wants your land any more, and we dont live in times when the local law enforcement was a day's ride away on horseback. It's modern America, not the Frontier.

Comparing the Mujahadeen and the Taliban, who are trained guerilla warriors to people that own guns in the States is eroneous. Your hand gun is no match for a Reaper Drone. Your assualt rifle is nothing to a plane dropping napalm or viral bombs on whole cities and towns. What are you going to do when naval ships are blasting the shit out of you, a mile out from the coast line? So a few of you go into hiding.....does that stop the Government, once gone rogue, from doing what they want? Look how that's worked out, all over the world. The simple fact is, the Western Governments of the world will never get like the Middle East, or parts of Africa. They like things, exactly the way things are right now.

I'm not 100% anti gun. I think I would get a blast out on a range, I just think there is a large percentage of your population that are not responsible enough to own a gun, regardless of their right. If guns can't be regulated, then more, MUCH MORE, needs to be done to protect buildings where innocents are at risk, like schools. Because the right of gun ownership should never supercede the right to live.

[Hunter]

Flagg I understand we do not have a large population that is not trained in guerilla warfare. We do however have a large rural community trained in the outdoors. In my area alone we have 100's of people who spend a great deal of time hunting, fishing, etc. To say that these people could not cause havoc is grossly underestimating them. I know many who could disappear into the woods for weeks on end with limited supplies.

I can admit that I have limited knowledge on european culture, etc. I think you would have to admit you have limited knowledge on the rural culture of the United States. Most of them have been raised in the outdoors since a young age and have been around firearms since they were young.

I have no desire to go "Rambo" etc. I simply wanna raise my family and enjoy the freedom this country allows me.

[Flagg]

Flagg I understand we do not have a large population that is not trained in guerilla warfare. We do however have a large rural community trained in the outdoors. In my area alone we have 100's of people who spend a great deal of time hunting, fishing, etc. To say that these people could not cause havoc is grossly underestimating them. I know many who could disappear into the woods for weeks on end with limited supplies.

I can admit that I have limited knowledge on european culture, etc. I think you would have to admit you have limited knowledge on the rural culture of the United States. Most of them have been raised in the outdoors since a young age and have been around firearms since they were young.

I have no desire to go "Rambo" etc. I simply wanna raise my family and enjoy the freedom this country allows me.

Your right, most of my time spent in the states was LA, NY and Florida. I don't really know much about rural america apart from what I read about. But you have to look at the kind of equipment the Government wields. They wouldn't even need to send soldiers out, when tanks, planes, drones and ships can do all the damage for them, practically 100% safe in the knowledge they cant be touched back.

[RaginCajun]

I have a couple of questions for The Godfather.

I personally believe that guns are so enshrined in America culture, that imposing regulations on guns does nothing but drive illegal weaponary underground. So, rather than tackling the issue of guns, you guys need to look at two other things:

Turning schools into fortresses. There's a reason a nut with a gun cannot walk into a bank, prison or military compound and do that sort of thing. Because everyone know's this wont be the last time something like this happens. But then where do you draw the line? Someone see's that they cant shoot up schools any more because of enhanced lock down procedures (steel doors, bullet proof glass), that they decide a supermarket is next best thing. So do you do the same to supermarkets? What then?
There has to be a reason why this happens more in the USA than anywhere else in the world. I know there's almost as many guns as people in the States, but that can't be it. Would it be unfair to say you have a higher population of mentally unstable or desperate people than any other country in the world? Is this a failing of Government, healthcare or socialcare, because if we can sniff out terrorist cells operating on home territory, how are people that are about to go bat shit crazy, not spotted sooner?

My second point is, I don't truly believe the 2nd Amendment is a right because if owning a gun is a right, then guns should be FREE. If owning a gun is a right, why don't the poor get that right? Are their rights less important than everyone elses? How will they 'defend' themselves? Plain and simple, owning a gun is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. If it was a right, everyone should be given a free gun when they're are of a responsible age. The US is already denying this right to the poor. So it's either the US is denying a fundamental right to its own citizens, or owning a gun is not a right.

Do you truly not think the 2nd Amendment is out of place in the 21st Century? There isn't an evil British empire that wants your land any more, and we dont live in times when the local law enforcement was a day's ride away on horseback. It's modern America, not the Frontier.

Comparing the Mujahadeen and the Taliban, who are trained guerilla warriors to people that own guns in the States is eroneous. Your hand gun is no match for a Reaper Drone. Your assualt rifle is nothing to a plane dropping napalm or viral bombs on whole cities and towns. What are you going to do when naval ships are blasting the shit out of you, a mile out from the coast line? So a few of you go into hiding.....does that stop the Government, once gone rogue, from doing what they want? Look how that's worked out, all over the world. The simple fact is, the Western Governments of the world will never get like the Middle East, or parts of Africa. They like things, exactly the way things are right now.

I'm not 100% anti gun. I think I would get a blast out on a range, I just think there is a large percentage of your population that are not responsible enough to own a gun, regardless of their right. If guns can't be regulated, then more, MUCH MORE, needs to be done to protect buildings where innocents are at risk, like schools. Because the right of gun ownership should never supercede the right to live.

when i was in school (31 now) we had armed police officers at school, even the elementary ones.

i grew up in the south louisiana and most all own guns, black or white.

sounds like something that schools should try

[AXx]

when i was in school (31 now) we had armed police officers at school, even the elementary ones.

i grew up in the south louisiana and most all own guns, black or white.

sounds like something that schools should try

We did also and still do in our schools.

[Armykid93]

when i was in school (31 now) we had armed police officers at school, even the elementary ones.

i grew up in the south louisiana and most all own guns, black or white.

sounds like something that schools should try

I wish the government would bring this back.

[Hunter]

Your right, most of my time spent in the states was LA, NY and Florida. I don't really know much about rural america apart from what I read about. But you have to look at the kind of equipment the Government wields. They wouldn't even need to send soldiers out, when tanks, planes, drones and ships can do all the damage for them, practically 100% safe in the knowledge they cant be touched back.

In my humble opinion you can't use tanks drones etc to hold large amount of lands indeffiantly. The causulities would be high on both sides and attrocities would be commited, I pray that it never happens. Also I doubt they would want to bomb the farm belt.

My state alone is 70,703 sq miles that is alot of land for anyone to try to hold.

[Hunter]

when i was in school (31 now) we had armed police officers at school, even the elementary ones.

i grew up in the south louisiana and most all own guns, black or white.

sounds like something that schools should try

haha I graduated with 50 some kids. The closest thing we had to a security guard was our janitor who had Nam flashbacks.

[RaginCajun]

haha I graduated with 50 some kids. The closest thing we had to a security guard was our janitor who had Nam flashbacks.

Hahahaha!

[Flagg]

In my humble opinion you can't use tanks drones etc to hold large amount of lands indeffiantly. The causulities would be high on both sides and attrocities would be commited, I pray that it never happens. Also I doubt they would want to bomb the farm belt.

My state alone is 70,703 sq miles that is alot of land for anyone to try to hold.

Yeah, good point I hadn't considered, you cant really destroy fertile crop land because you deny yourself food.

[JJ78]

The point is:

If you start altering our rights that make the US waht it is, it will not stop. Everything will change.
Our forefathers knew this would happen one day. That is why they wrote the Constitution. We are headed into bad times. Our government is voting the way the UN wants them to.

We are the only major threat to the powers that be in the world. Because of our 2nd ammendment rights.

Australia wouldnt last a week to a ground invasion. We on the other hand will rise up and defeat anyone that steps foot on our land and is threatining. Not because of our military, but because of our gun owning citizens.
Unfortunately this last incident is only the begining. There will be more of these happening, because they need them to make the point.

I also am a convicted felon(possesion of Marijuana) and I legally cannot own firearms or even live in a home with them.
I am also a gun owning American Citizen. I can purchase guns everyday of the week, any gun, any caliber Fully Auto, semi auto.
If you take them awy from the citizens the only people with them will be criminals and police. I can and will defend my home.

[JJ78]

I would also like to add that if someone broke into my home or threatend me, I would not call the police or military to help. Where i am from, we take care of ourselves.
I dont want to be dependent on anyone for anything.