2nd Amendment: Nothing Changed In Over Two Centuries

[westwall]

Statistical Comparison:

The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

That's some of the worst cherrypicking EVER.

People going to doctors are BY DEFINITION sick, injured or wounded. The comparison is utter bullshit.

It's accurate however.

 

[Pogo]

Statistical Comparison:

The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

That's some of the worst cherrypicking EVER.

People going to doctors are BY DEFINITION sick, injured or wounded. The comparison is utter bullshit.

It's accurate however.

It's accurate that it's bullshit, yes.

One goes to a doctor specifically because one is sick, injured, bleeding, dying, etc. That set of people -- those who are sick, injured, bleeding etc -- is BY DEFINITION in real and present danger of death or heading in that direction. That's why they're seeing the fucking doctor. It's what doctors DEAL WITH.

In the same way, I don't know if many people know this but an overwhelming number of subjects a coroner deals with have recently died. Who knew, right?

 

[westwall]

Statistical Comparison:

The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

That's some of the worst cherrypicking EVER.

People going to doctors are BY DEFINITION sick, injured or wounded. The comparison is utter bullshit.

It's accurate however.

It's accurate that it's bullshit, yes.

One goes to a doctor specifically because one is sick, injured, bleeding, dying, etc. That set of people -- those who are sick, injured, bleeding etc -- is BY DEFINITION in real and present danger of death or heading in that direction. That's why they're seeing the fucking doctor. It's what doctors DEAL WITH.

In the same way, I don't know if many people know this but an overwhelming number of subjects a coroner deals with have recently died. Who knew, right?

No, you're wrong. Joan Rivers died because a doctor KILLED her. She was in for a elective surgery that should have been a quick in/out procedure. The 120,000 who die at the hands of doctors are those who died from medical malpractice, misdiagnosis, prescribing the wrong drugs, and simple mistakes.

They were NOT in immediate jeopardy.

Those statistics are from the American Medical Association and not some lunatic. It is them keeping track so they can hopefully make things better.

Learn to read.

 

[Pogo]

Statistical Comparison:

The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

That's some of the worst cherrypicking EVER.

People going to doctors are BY DEFINITION sick, injured or wounded. The comparison is utter bullshit.

It's accurate however.

It's accurate that it's bullshit, yes.

One goes to a doctor specifically because one is sick, injured, bleeding, dying, etc. That set of people -- those who are sick, injured, bleeding etc -- is BY DEFINITION in real and present danger of death or heading in that direction. That's why they're seeing the fucking doctor. It's what doctors DEAL WITH.

In the same way, I don't know if many people know this but an overwhelming number of subjects a coroner deals with have recently died. Who knew, right?

No, you're wrong. Joan Rivers died because a doctor KILLED her. She was in for a elective surgery that should have been a quick in/out procedure. The 120,000 who die at the hands of doctors are those who died from medical malpractice, misdiagnosis, prescribing the wrong drugs, and simple mistakes.

They were NOT in immediate jeopardy.

Those statistics are from the American Medical Association and not some lunatic. It is them keeping track so they can hopefully make things better.

Learn to read.

Horse Shit.
The OP introduced those numbers with, and I quote:

Yesterday I received the following by e-mail. I do not know how accurate the following stats are:

-- a viral e-mail. YOU learn to read.

And regardless what the numbers are, it's STILL a biased comparison. It's the equivalent of claiming the average person leaving a restaurant is less hungry than the average person walking down the street in the middle of their day.

No shit, Sherlock.

 

[Pogo]

How long have you been retarded?

Everyone, ever, in all of time, says, writes and philosophizes in their own time. When our Founders wrote the Second Amendment -- indeed the entire Bill of Rights -- they did so in the context of their world of the 18th century. That world did not include AK-47s, tanks, drones, nuclear warheads, planes, etc etc etc. They could not consider what did not then exist.

Not many people would need this level explained... SMH

It (18th Century) included homosexuals, abortions and slaves ... The Constitution was changed or adulterated to address those issues.
If you want to say the Constitution doesn't fit the requirements of today as far as the Second Amendment ... Then go through the process necessary to change it and see how far you get.

Or pretend you can continue to make laws that attempt to overrule it ... And in doing so bastardize any application of anything written in the Constitution to start with.
You cannot pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you want to follow when there is a process contained within to properly amend it in the first place.

You're inserting a long litany of extrapolations I never made. I said nothing about whether the Constitution "fits the requirements" of anything. Nor did I say anything about changing it, nor did I say anything about "overruling" it or making any laws. NOR did I say anything about what I "want to follow". That's an army of strawmen looking for a cause.

I simply noted that the OP left out an important perspective in his absurd suggestion that "nothing changed in over two centuries". Obviously a lot did.

That's IT. End of point.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. K? I won't accept that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"2nd Amendment: Nothing Changed In Over Two Centuries"

And nothing changes with your threads – more of the same ignorant, partisan rightwing delusional idiocy.

No one of significance or consequence is advocating that guns be 'banned' or 'confiscated,' including the president, as a consequence of Charleston; only you and most others on the right are attempting to contrive and propagate the lie that the murders in Charleston will be used to 'justify' further regulation of firearms.

A problem exists that clearly needs to be addressed, where there is nothing wrong with exploring solutions that comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Gun violence can be addressed in ways other than the regulation of firearms, but you and most others on the right aren't interested in that, you're only interested in partisan attacks by perpetuating the ridiculous canard of 'gun control.'

 

[BlackSand]

You're inserting a long litany of extrapolations I never made. I said nothing about whether the Constitution "fits the requirements" of anything. Nor did I say anything about changing it, nor did I say anything about "overruling" it or making any laws. NOR did I say anything about what I "want to follow". That's an army of strawmen looking for a cause.

I simply noted that the OP left out an important perspective in his absurd suggestion that "nothing changed in over two centuries". Obviously a lot did.

That's IT. End of point.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. K? I won't accept that.

I made a series of statements that identified my views in loose association with the previous comments you had made.
I wasn't arguing with you as much as identifying what I believe to be the proper way to handle any grievance you or any other person may have with what is already established in the Constitution.

No need to crawfish around and get defensive ... I didn't argue the OP's point at all.
The circumstance where I actually used the word "you" can apply to you as well as anyone ... What I meant doesn't change from one person to the next ... And I don't have to dissect a lot bullshit or parse words to say ... "Do it the way it was intended to be done ... Or leave it alone".

.

 

[Pogo]

You're inserting a long litany of extrapolations I never made. I said nothing about whether the Constitution "fits the requirements" of anything. Nor did I say anything about changing it, nor did I say anything about "overruling" it or making any laws. NOR did I say anything about what I "want to follow". That's an army of strawmen looking for a cause.

I simply noted that the OP left out an important perspective in his absurd suggestion that "nothing changed in over two centuries". Obviously a lot did.

That's IT. End of point.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. K? I won't accept that.

I made a series of statements that identified my views in loose association with the previous comments you had made.
I wasn't arguing with you as much as identifying what I believe to be the proper way to handle any grievance you or any other person may have with what is already established in the Constitution.

None of those assumptions had anything to do with my purpose in pointing out the omission. I pointed out that omission because it makes the OP's position dishonest.

That's all there is to it. What might come after that is a whole 'nother question, but no legitimate discourse can begin from a position of dishonesty. That has to be fixed first.

No need to crawfish around and get defensive ... I didn't argue the OP's point at all.
The circumstance where I actually used the word "you" can apply to you as well as anyone ... What I meant doesn't change from one person to the next ... And I don't have to dissect a lot bullshit or parse words to say ... "Do it the way it was intended to be done ... Or leave it alone".

And that still has nothing to do with my point at all.

But thanks for da crawfish, chère.

Et tu, Faye?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[westwall]

Statistical Comparison:

The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

That's some of the worst cherrypicking EVER.

People going to doctors are BY DEFINITION sick, injured or wounded. The comparison is utter bullshit.

It's accurate however.

It's accurate that it's bullshit, yes.

One goes to a doctor specifically because one is sick, injured, bleeding, dying, etc. That set of people -- those who are sick, injured, bleeding etc -- is BY DEFINITION in real and present danger of death or heading in that direction. That's why they're seeing the fucking doctor. It's what doctors DEAL WITH.

In the same way, I don't know if many people know this but an overwhelming number of subjects a coroner deals with have recently died. Who knew, right?

No, you're wrong. Joan Rivers died because a doctor KILLED her. She was in for a elective surgery that should have been a quick in/out procedure. The 120,000 who die at the hands of doctors are those who died from medical malpractice, misdiagnosis, prescribing the wrong drugs, and simple mistakes.

They were NOT in immediate jeopardy.

Those statistics are from the American Medical Association and not some lunatic. It is them keeping track so they can hopefully make things better.

Learn to read.

Horse Shit.
The OP introduced those numbers with, and I quote:

Yesterday I received the following by e-mail. I do not know how accurate the following stats are:

-- a viral e-mail. YOU learn to read.

And regardless what the numbers are, it's STILL a biased comparison. It's the equivalent of claiming the average person leaving a restaurant is less hungry than the average person walking down the street in the middle of their day.

No shit, Sherlock.

Wow, look at this, JAMA agrees with us and not you...... How totally unsurprising. Your problem pogo is you are so highly biased you ignore real evidence. I don't. I am biased, there is no doubt about that, but I will at least report on the favorable, AND unfavorable studies out there. You people don't.

"Medical Errors - A Leading Cause of Death

The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, shows that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.

The report apparently shows there are 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications - these total up to 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer. Iatrogenic is a term used when a patient dies as a direct result of treatments by a physician, whether it is from misdiagnosis of the ailment or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness. (drug reactions are the most common cause)."



MEDICAL ERRORS THE FDA AND PROBLEMS WITH PRESCRIPTION DRUGS - Welcome To Cancer Cure Foundation

 

[Flanders]

"Do it the way it was intended to be done ... Or leave it alone".

To BlackSand: Brief and accurate beyond question.

The problem comes in when Democrats accommodate their agenda without altering the Constitution the correct way. Their greatest coup was selling the idea that the Constitution is a living, breathing, document —— which allows them to amend the Constitution with legislation, and/or their activist judges. They then contradicted their living, breathing, argument with ‘settled law’ —— meaning the laws Democrats pass are settled. Ergo, Democrat laws cannot be repealed or amended. That’s why Democrats fight tooth and nail to seat judges they approve of and the Constitution be damned. In short: Only Supreme Court justices can make settled law, not Congress or the Constitution.

In one sense Judge Napolitano ‘overturned’ settled law when he said this about Supreme Court justices: “They’re infallible because they’re final, they’re not final because they’re infallible.”

Move the cursor to 5:55:

Lou Dobbs Tonight Fox Business​

"Medical Errors - A Leading Cause of Death

To westwall: Thank you. Your info made my point:

I do know that the number of patients who die from infections they picked up in hospitals far outnumbers all of the men, women, and children killed by mental cases with a gun.

 

[Flanders]

Television’s ghouls, gun control liars, and race hustlers are off and running again because another nut job used a gun to murder people in a South Carolina church.

Guns don’t kill people, the Constitution kills people, at least according to Karl Rove, Republican strategist and architect of George W. Bush’s election and reelection as president. Rove, speaking on Fox News Sunday, and in the wake of the South Carolina church massacre, embraced the liberal mantra that there are too many guns on the street and went a step further and a step too far, saying the way to avoid more such tragedies is to repeal the Second Amendment and its guarantee of our right to keep and bear arms:

XXXXX​

Say what? Rove displays an ignorance of our history and our Constitution and how we won our freedoms thanks to private citizens bearing arms. The Second Amendment, it has been said, was written to protect the other nine in the Bill of Rights, and was an acknowledgement of the threat from tyrants and other domestic enemies such as the criminals and the crazies that would otherwise roam unchallenged among us.

June 22, 2015
Karl Rove vs. the 2nd Amendment
By Daniel John Sobieski

Articles Karl Rove vs. the 2nd Amendment​

Rove is not ignorant, he is a standard Republican sneak who will say and do everything to disarm the American people. I doubt if average Republicans believe Rove, yet he must believe that conservatives trust him because he is on television.

 

[Alystyr]

What I would like to see is what percentage of overall gun crimes are committed by a person that had obtained the firearm legally (didn't falsify the information on the 4473 form, for example) and was in legal possession of said firearm - in short, had not violated ANY existing laws before the commission of the crime.
I would imagine that it would be in the very low single digits, if even that high.
Laws only work when a potential violator fears the punishment that they might receive more than they desire what they might gain by performing the illegal act.

 

[LOki]

Statistical Comparison:

The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

That's some of the worst cherrypicking EVER.

People going to doctors are BY DEFINITION sick, injured or wounded. The comparison is utter bullshit.

It's accurate however.

It's accurate that it's bullshit, yes.

One goes to a doctor specifically because one is sick, injured, bleeding, dying, etc. That set of people -- those who are sick, injured, bleeding etc -- is BY DEFINITION in real and present danger of death or heading in that direction. That's why they're seeing the fucking doctor. It's what doctors DEAL WITH.

In the same way, I don't know if many people know this but an overwhelming number of subjects a coroner deals with have recently died. Who knew, right?

Yet when someone succumbs to their illness or injury while in the care of a doctor, they don't declare it an accident on the doctor's part, do they?

It's only when through some accident on the doctor's part do they place such responsibility upon the doctor, correct?

When the statistic refers to a doctor's error, it's not referring to say, some driver's error that brought a patient to said doctor, correct?

Do you understand why some might wonder about why you're submitting a critique of a comparison that wasn't made?

 

[Flanders]

He loses the argument.

"There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America," President Barack Obama proclaimed after the October mass shooting that killed 10 at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. "So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer? We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don't work—or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns—is not borne out by the evidence."

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns
The misleading uses, flagrant abuses, and shoddy statistics of social science about gun violence
Brian Doherty from the February 2016 issue

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns​

Guns keep the rest of us safer from tyrannical government.

 

[Agit8r]

Television’s ghouls, gun control liars, and race hustlers are off and running again because another nut job used a gun to murder people in a South Carolina church.

“The apparent motivations of the shooter remind us that racism remains a blight that we have to combat together," he said. "We have made great progress but we have to be vigilant because it’s still lingering and when its’ poisoning the minds of young people it betrays our ideals and it tears our democracy apart.”

Obama 'Not Resigned' on Gun Control After Charleston South Carolina Shooting
Jun 19, 2015, 6:19 PM ET
By ARLETTE SAENZ

Obama Not Resigned on Gun Control After Charleston South Carolina Shooting - ABC News​

NOTE: If guns do betray Taqiyya the Liar’s “. . . democracy . . .” I am in favor of more guns.

Gun control liars continue their war to erase the reason for the Second Amendment:

A George Soros-financed anti-gun advocacy group is implying Americans don’t need weapons, citing its own statistics purportedly showing gun owners rarely actually use their firearms for self-defense.​

Burying the Second Amendment under a mountain of gun control laws —— without actually repealing it —— hinges on convincing the public that self-defense with a gun is unnecessary when the opposite is true:

However, the National Rifle Association (NRA) releasing a statement questioning the data.

“This ‘so-called’ study, which was paid for and promoted by gun control advocates is rubbish,” NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker stated. “VPC fails to note that only a fraction of defensive firearm homicides are reported to the FBI and the study doesn’t account for the many crimes deterred by a firearm that do not result in a homicide. Recent polling shows that most Americans believe exercising their constitutional right to self-protection makes them safer and this is just another transparent attempt to push gun control.”

Soros group: Americans don't really use guns for self-defense
Posted By Aaron Klein On 06/19/2015 @ 8:49 pm

Soros group Americans don t really use guns for self-defense​

The primary reason for the Second Amendment is more important today than it was more than two hundred years ago:

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour. George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress

XXXXX​

The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. Thomas Jefferson

XXXXX​

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson

XXXXX​

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Thomas Jefferson

XXXXX​

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

XXXXX​

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. Thomas Jefferson's advice to his 15-year-old nephew

XXXXX​

I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

XXXXX​

And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good firelock in proper order, & to furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, & always keep by us, one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gunflints, & a pair of bullet moulds, with a cartouch box, or powder horn, and bag for balls. George Mason

XXXXX​

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can. Samuel Adams

XXXXX​

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

XXXXX​

Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense. John Adams

XXXXX​

They tell us that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Patrick Henry

XXXXX​

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. Patrick Henry

XXXXX​

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong. Thomas Paine

XXXXX​

It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. Thomas Paine

XXXXX​

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster

XXXXX​

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. Joseph Story​

Yesterday I received the following by e-mail. I do not know how accurate the following stats are:

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

Statistics courtesy of FBI.

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.

(Yes, that's 80 million)

Statistical Comparison:

The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN. Almost everyone has at least one doctor.

This means you are over 9,000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than killed by a gun owner!

Out of concern for the public at large, we withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!​

I do know that the number of patients who die from infections they picked in hospitals far outnumbers all of the men, women, and children killed by mental cases with a gun.

Oh good, it's a fake quote thread!

Spurious Quotations | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

The beauty of the Second Amendment... (Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

Strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms (Spurious Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello


In order to ascertain the original intent of the amendment, one has to find REAL quotes relevant to the subject:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
-- George Mason; from Virginia Declaration of Rights

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
-- John Adams; from 'A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America'

 

[Flanders]

Oh good, it's a fake quote thread!

To Agit8r: Turning the Second Amendment into a government Right is ridiculous. I am not going to engage in a game of dueling quotes. Say what you will but know this: There is no need for the Second Amendment when the government controls all guns.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh good, it's a fake quote thread!

To Agit8r: Turning the Second Amendment into a government Right is ridiculous. I am not going to engage in a game of dueling quotes. Say what you will but know this: There is no need for the Second Amendment when the government controls all guns.

No, this post is ridiculous.

 

[Agit8r]

Oh good, it's a fake quote thread!

To Agit8r: Turning the Second Amendment into a government Right is ridiculous. I am not going to engage in a game of dueling quotes. Say what you will but know this: There is no need for the Second Amendment when the government controls all guns.

Of course. You'd be dueling with a fake weapon.