Marc17

This page was created because I keep getting into discussions about gun rights. So I decided to just put everything on a web page for others rather than having to barrage them with constant email and so I would have the stats and figures ready at hand.

The first thing I would like to say is that it's not about stats or figures. It's about rights. Human rights. Until you understand that then you really are not addressing the issue.

Second would be the discussion about the militia and what the founding fathers actually meant by the 2nd Amendment.

Forth will be a paranoid rant against a large standing army overlooking an unarmed populace.

"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." -- 2nd Amendment of the US constitution

Seems to me to say it all pretty clearly. A militia which is defined as the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because it is necessary for a free state. Seems to be me to state pretty clearly that the common person has the right to keep and bear arms. I've heard talk of constitutional phrasing, changes in 200 year old grammar, and legal definitions, but have yet to actually see any real evidence or discussion of this form the people who say it. Reading the works of the same people who wrote those words, it's pretty obvious that they meant for the common person to own weapons so they were capable of rebelling against an unpopular government.

One of the things they really do come out against is a large standing national army, which goes directly against saying that the army and national guard are what is mentioned by the second amendment.

So far I've seen nothing that links violence/murder rates and the presence of guns. Vancouver banned guns and the murder rate did not change. Jamaica banned guns and the murder rate increased as well as the amount of police brutality and the amount of human rights violations attributed to the government. Mexico has much stricter firearm laws and banns the owning of any 'military' carbine, yet has a much higher murder rate. The US cities that have instituted greater gun control have not seen their hopeful decrease in violence. In fact most countries, states and cities that institute stricter firearm laws see rises in violence and murder while those that liberalize those laws see lower.

Does gun ownership lead to a more civilized human race? -der Terful
Yes, reserving power on for those in charge is a barbaric practice and only done to deprive the common person of their rights.

Is there more or less violence in the US as compared to Canada or
Britain? (rate, of course) -der Terful
And before I even venture into this, you're going to have to show me that it is not a red herring. See Stats and Studies above.

If nobody had guns, what would happen? -der Terful
The sun would shine, the birds would sing and we'd all live happily ever after. Unfortunately, people aren't suggesting that all the guns are done away with, only those in the hands of the common person. Instead they only seek to take the guns form the common person and place that power solely with the government. That's about as right-wing fascist as it gets.

Why would anyone NEED a gun in less than 5 days that they couldn't get a
court ordered exception for? -der Terful
Because the military has disbanded the courts, but then again, who is to say the courts cannot become corrupt or biased to begin with? If this were the case today, what do you think the chances of whites being more favorably granted such exceptions than blacks or other minorities?

Why do gun advocates get so concerned about guns and often vote against
social programs that reduce violence at the source? -der Terful
One persons solution, is another's social problem. I've yet to see much of anything that says the violence/murder rate can be changed at all short of changing the entire culture.

Does the glorification of guns in our society increase or decrease the
attractiveness of their use. -der Terful

What is a gun designed to do? (answer: Kill. There is no other thing
they are designed for. Same can be said of crossbows and bows and
arrows) -der Terful
Yes, and under this reasoning, why should the government and the police have them and not the common citizen if it is not to kill the common citizen ?

What limitations are you willing to concede? Should we all be allowed
to own bazookas? land mines? grenades? -der Terful
I see no reason to disallow any individual anything without specific reason for anything that is allowed to the government.

Do you really think that the drafters of the constitution had any idea
what kind of designs of guns would eventually be made? Considering that
in the late 1800's the head of the US patent office thought that
everything that could be invented was. If they could foresee the
controversy today, what would they think? -der Terful
Whatever. The revolutionary war saw advances in gun design just as any gun. The Sharp rifle was invented and used by the British during the Revolutionary war which was a breech loading rifle with superb accuracy and fire rate which put it above the other rifles of the day (hence the origins of the term 'sharpshooter' ). Similarly, the rise of Napoleon saw the use and similar advancements in canons which changed warfare just as tanks did in W.W.II. Despite the quote of a single person a hundred years later, I don't think there was ever a serious commonly held belief that the march of technology would ever stop.

For the drafters of the constitutions thoughts on the subject of guns, see the Militias section above. As to their ideas of what they would think of the controversy today, I think they would be much more against our large standing national military and it's use in the world than the right to the people to own guns.

What would Jesus do? (just kidding!) -der Terful
Jesus let one of his followers carry a sword and just told him to put it in its sheath because of the situation rather than disregard it completely. If Jesus was against packing weapons, I'm sure he would have made sure they weren't carrying them. Instead, he simply said this was not the time to fight because it was the fulfillment of his destiny.

Not to be said that i don't encourage free speech or looking and weighing all the facts in any given case. Here are some anti-gun links for counter point.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriot and tyrants".
--Thomas Jefferson

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty teeth."
--George Washington, First President

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
---James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.