Something the media conveniently fails to point out is prescription drugs are behind people going wacky with guns. Mass killiings with guns mirror the advent of pcycotropic drugs of the 1960's. There is plenty of evidence on the I-net if one cares to do a little research. Power hungry governments are all too pleased to cash in on the misery of their citizens to expand their control. I always wanted to visit Austrailia, but sadly, freedom appears to be in short supply making the country less appealing than it use to be. As I hear on this site, it is getting more and more difficult to own a performance car Down Under. Loads of stupid regs from arogant government types. Remember the 2nd ammendment is not about hunting. It is about keeping the king of England out of your face!!(and others with a god syndrome). Only free men are armed.
Is the right to bear arms outdated.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
This article is a lot of reading, but a progressive friend of mine sent me this and I think this is a very objective view to the gun control issue and is something that both sides can understand. The writer seems to have less of a bias than anyone who's posted in this thread, and provides very realistic assessment of the issues at hand.
Bottom line, a good read for anyone seriously interested in the gun debate.
The Riddle of the Gun : Sam Harris
Bottom line, a good read for anyone seriously interested in the gun debate.
The Riddle of the Gun : Sam Harris
"Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. There have been cases of prison guards (who generally do not carry guns) helplessly standing by as one of their own was stabbed to death by a lone prisoner armed with an improvised blade. The hesitation of bystanders in these situations makes perfect sense—and “diffusion of responsibility” has little to do with it. The fantasies of many martial artists aside, to go unarmed against a person with a knife is to put oneself in very real peril, regardless of one’s training. The same can be said of attacks involving multiple assailants. A world without guns is a world in which no man, not even a member of Seal Team Six, can reasonably expect to prevail over more than one determined attacker at a time. A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?"
That's pretty much all that need be said right there. But then he muddies it up with this:
"Carrying a gun in public, however, entails even greater responsibility than keeping one at home, and in most states the laws reflect this. Like many gun-control advocates, I have serious concerns about letting ordinary citizens walk around armed.[2] Ordinary altercations can become needlessly deadly in the presence of a weapon. A scuffle that exposes a gun in a person’s waistband, for instance, can quickly become a fight to the death—where the first person to get his hands on the weapon may feel justified using it in “self-defense.” Most people seem unaware that knives present a similar liability. According to Gallup, 16 percent of American men carry knives for personal protection. I am quite sure that most of those men have not thought through the legal, ethical, and game-theoretical implications of drawing a blade in a moment of conflict. It is true that brandishing a weapon (whether a gun or a knife) sometimes preempts further violence. But, emotions being what they are, it often doesn’t—and the owner of the weapon can find himself resorting to deadly force in a circumstance that would not otherwise have called for it."
He seems to be saying, "Hey, no problem with having a gun at home, but leave that puppy AT home whenever you're out in public." Well, why does he now seem to be turning his back on his principle that, "...a world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive"? Does he think the odds of being assaulted by thugs on the street isn't anywhere near as high as it is when one is inside his own home??? On top of that he opines: "I have serious concerns about letting ordinary citizens (!!!) walk around armed." Oh, really! Well, The Founders obviously didn't, and I side with them.
The bottom line is this:
The Second Amendment says congress shall pass NO LAW infringing on the right of the people to keep & bear arms. Period. NO LAW. We have the right to carry concealed, in the open, at home, in public - where ever we happen to be. The Founders didn't restrict that. And nowhere in the 2nd Amend did The Founders give congress the authority to dictate which "arms" the American people could and could not "keep and bear". If they HAD granted that authority to govt, it would be in there somewhere. It isn't. Therefore Congress doesn't have it. So, Dianne's goofy "assault weapon" ban is completely unconstitutional. (If BANNING a particular gun isn't an infringement on one's right to keep and bear it, I don't know what is.)
This stuff isn't rocket science, folks. Really, it isn't.
That's pretty much all that need be said right there. But then he muddies it up with this:
"Carrying a gun in public, however, entails even greater responsibility than keeping one at home, and in most states the laws reflect this. Like many gun-control advocates, I have serious concerns about letting ordinary citizens walk around armed.[2] Ordinary altercations can become needlessly deadly in the presence of a weapon. A scuffle that exposes a gun in a person’s waistband, for instance, can quickly become a fight to the death—where the first person to get his hands on the weapon may feel justified using it in “self-defense.” Most people seem unaware that knives present a similar liability. According to Gallup, 16 percent of American men carry knives for personal protection. I am quite sure that most of those men have not thought through the legal, ethical, and game-theoretical implications of drawing a blade in a moment of conflict. It is true that brandishing a weapon (whether a gun or a knife) sometimes preempts further violence. But, emotions being what they are, it often doesn’t—and the owner of the weapon can find himself resorting to deadly force in a circumstance that would not otherwise have called for it."
He seems to be saying, "Hey, no problem with having a gun at home, but leave that puppy AT home whenever you're out in public." Well, why does he now seem to be turning his back on his principle that, "...a world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive"? Does he think the odds of being assaulted by thugs on the street isn't anywhere near as high as it is when one is inside his own home??? On top of that he opines: "I have serious concerns about letting ordinary citizens (!!!) walk around armed." Oh, really! Well, The Founders obviously didn't, and I side with them.
The bottom line is this:
The Second Amendment says congress shall pass NO LAW infringing on the right of the people to keep & bear arms. Period. NO LAW. We have the right to carry concealed, in the open, at home, in public - where ever we happen to be. The Founders didn't restrict that. And nowhere in the 2nd Amend did The Founders give congress the authority to dictate which "arms" the American people could and could not "keep and bear". If they HAD granted that authority to govt, it would be in there somewhere. It isn't. Therefore Congress doesn't have it. So, Dianne's goofy "assault weapon" ban is completely unconstitutional. (If BANNING a particular gun isn't an infringement on one's right to keep and bear it, I don't know what is.)
This stuff isn't rocket science, folks. Really, it isn't.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
The felon, with the bazooka would be blown away by the people carrying concealed Uzi's.
.
.Thanks, Pete! Well said!
Jim, a felon's right to keep and bear goes bye-bye with his felony conviction...as does his right to vote - which many of your liberal pals strangely oppose by-the-way. As to the bazooka thing, you'll need to change the 2nd Amend.
And, no, I don't care to go example-by-example with you on this, sir.
Jim, a felon's right to keep and bear goes bye-bye with his felony conviction...as does his right to vote - which many of your liberal pals strangely oppose by-the-way. As to the bazooka thing, you'll need to change the 2nd Amend.
And, no, I don't care to go example-by-example with you on this, sir.
Idiots over here are also campaigning for convicts to have the right to vote whilst they are in jail! What a world we are making. This blatant hi-jacking of the thread is deliberate btw.
Did anyone see Pete's post about the Man and his Goose? Awesome. Check it out.
The weather here in the UK is strangley mild for January. I managed to get an inconceivable amount of gardening jobs done three months early, which leaves me with nothing to do in April. That'll be nice.
My son Jack has been picked to crew on a Tall Ship this year. Very cool indeed, I hope you will agree.
My cat Guinness is still plodding along despite being 20 years old and suffering from diabetes.
Carry on. Intermission over..............
Did anyone see Pete's post about the Man and his Goose? Awesome. Check it out.
The weather here in the UK is strangley mild for January. I managed to get an inconceivable amount of gardening jobs done three months early, which leaves me with nothing to do in April. That'll be nice.
My son Jack has been picked to crew on a Tall Ship this year. Very cool indeed, I hope you will agree.
My cat Guinness is still plodding along despite being 20 years old and suffering from diabetes.
Carry on. Intermission over..............
YES!!! As a matter of fact I saw it just before coming back here. It's great!!!
I'd like to see more stories of that type.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
And, no, I don't care to go example-by-example with you on this, sir.[/quote]Larry L
Yes, of course you don't want to go example by example...........
Does the 2nd Amendment say anything about felons, aircraft, mental problems or minors?
Are there any weapon that should not be allowed?
So Larry, haven't you already agreed that some laws limiting the right to bare arms are ok (felons, minors, mental problems or aircraft).
So when you said that "NO LAW, PERIOD" shall be passed, you were not correct, were you?
Last edited:
I really believe you're going to pettifog, twist, spin, parse and nuance this whole issue until the day you die, Jim.
As I said before, and 'will say this one last time, the constitution provides for the removal of one's rights VIA DUE PROCESS. IOW, if someone commits a crime worthy of it, the courts are empowered to remove "X" right. Were this NOT the case, no one could be put in prison.
'Passing no law infringing' refers to laws infringing on the rights of LAW ABIDING citizens. But then, deep down even you have to know that.
Quote Jim C.
Trying to misslead us again?
Tom, you know very well that California has by far the largest population, and yes by comparison we have fairly strong gun laws.
[QUOTE=Tom P I said the number of deaths was the highest, and it is. CA had 1220 firearm murders in 2011 or 10% of US murders followed by Texas at 699.
Jim, you never replied with an apology for jumping the gun and saying I was trying to mislead when you failed to read the post correctly.
Trying to misslead us again?
Tom, you know very well that California has by far the largest population, and yes by comparison we have fairly strong gun laws.
[QUOTE=Tom P I said the number of deaths was the highest, and it is. CA had 1220 firearm murders in 2011 or 10% of US murders followed by Texas at 699.
Jim, you never replied with an apology for jumping the gun and saying I was trying to mislead when you failed to read the post correctly.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
LarryL
The second amendment says nothing about "law abiding citizens" does it.
So you HAVE decided than gun ownership can be limited, by law, in a a somewhat arbitrary way, I totaly agree!
Larry, the point is, when you say "Congress shall pass NO LAW infringing on the right of the people to keep & bear arms. Period" You are not stating the facts. Many laws limiting gun ownersip, when and where they are permitted, have been passed, tested and upheld.
Now at this point, we are just debating where we draw the line.
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Posted by Tom
Tom, you were trying to misslead!
You said, Califiornia has gun control laws, yet has the highest number of gun deaths, implying that gun control laws do not work, right? You mentioned CA gun laws and that CA has the most deaths.
Tom you know very well that per person, Ca is 30th on the list of gun deaths. Behind 29 states without gun control laws.
If you were not trying to mislead why did you imply that a State with gun laws have more gun deaths?
I love ole Gunny!!!
Larry, how are you? Do you wear a powdered wig? Is it itchy? I was thinking of picking one up for the winter weather but wanted to check with you first.
“For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion…(Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482 )
As you know, many of the wig wearers agreed that an armed militia was very important to defend against a tyrannical government. This was the main driving force behind the 2nd ammendment.
Militia Defined:
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
We have a militia. Its our armed forces. They are well trained, organized, and commanded by the great patriot Obama. What are you worried about? You should be melting your guns down right now to make a set of spinners for your Fiberfab.
And what have you private gun owners done for this country lately? Corporate America is buying your politicians, writing the rules they play by, outsourcing your job, devaluing your property, and stealing your last pair of clean underwear. They are not intimidated by your weapons. I am not sure why, I know I am. Maybe it is because they have a much more powerful, oppressive weapon called debt. C'mon boys, its time to start shooting! If now is not the time, I do not know when is.
“For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion…(Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482 )
As you know, many of the wig wearers agreed that an armed militia was very important to defend against a tyrannical government. This was the main driving force behind the 2nd ammendment.
Militia Defined:
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
We have a militia. Its our armed forces. They are well trained, organized, and commanded by the great patriot Obama. What are you worried about? You should be melting your guns down right now to make a set of spinners for your Fiberfab.
And what have you private gun owners done for this country lately? Corporate America is buying your politicians, writing the rules they play by, outsourcing your job, devaluing your property, and stealing your last pair of clean underwear. They are not intimidated by your weapons. I am not sure why, I know I am. Maybe it is because they have a much more powerful, oppressive weapon called debt. C'mon boys, its time to start shooting! If now is not the time, I do not know when is.
Because I was showing the state with the most firearm homicides, and that was CA. Not per 100k, the largest number, 1220, or 10% of all US firearm homicides. You were trying to mislead with your graph.
Business is like water... it will flow to the path of least resistance. Since there is too much 'resistance' here from laws, taxes, and regulation, the smart business have moved to where they don't have such problems. The movement of business if predictable, they will always do what it can to maximize its profits. Even so, we continue to create an environment that is hostile to business. Who's fault is that?