2nd Amendment(Gun Rights) Logic,Rationale, and Background
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?
One more for good measure...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.”
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.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Euroholic
