Do you notice how RWs never establish a line on their 2nd amendment rights?

[danielpalos]

Where? You seem to be illegal to the law of large numbers.

Where? You seem to be illegal to the law of large numbers.

Oh?

It would appear you don't KNOW the law of large numbers. It is not applicable in the context you're trying to shoehorn it into.

Yes, it does. You are simply, clueless and Causeless.

Could you, perhaps, explain how the Law of Large Numbers applies to gun control? Enlighten us ...

Averages.

Proof you don't even understand the Law of Large Numbers. Did you sleep in that day? Missed class because you were sitting in your safe place eating yogurt. The LLN has absolutely nothing to do with averages.

I'll try to make it simple - the LLN simply says that as the sample increases, the probability of an occurrence will move closer to the reality of occurrence. For example, if we know that 1 out of every 2 million people have diamonds inserted in their rectums, as the sample grows, the probability of that occurring within our sample increases accordingly. Therefore, if we were to sample 350 million people, the probability that one of them have diamonds in their rectum approaches virtual certainty.

Based on that, I have only two questions ----

1) Do the diamonds hurt?
2) What the hell does that have to do with gun control?

More guns=more crime.

 

[Spare_change]

Oh?

It would appear you don't KNOW the law of large numbers. It is not applicable in the context you're trying to shoehorn it into.

Yes, it does. You are simply, clueless and Causeless.

Could you, perhaps, explain how the Law of Large Numbers applies to gun control? Enlighten us ...

Averages.

Proof you don't even understand the Law of Large Numbers. Did you sleep in that day? Missed class because you were sitting in your safe place eating yogurt. The LLN has absolutely nothing to do with averages.

I'll try to make it simple - the LLN simply says that as the sample increases, the probability of an occurrence will move closer to the reality of occurrence. For example, if we know that 1 out of every 2 million people have diamonds inserted in their rectums, as the sample grows, the probability of that occurring within our sample increases accordingly. Therefore, if we were to sample 350 million people, the probability that one of them have diamonds in their rectum approaches virtual certainty.

Based on that, I have only two questions ----

1) Do the diamonds hurt?
2) What the hell does that have to do with gun control?

More guns=more crime.

That has been proven demonstrably false a million times. Unless, of course, you have some new artificially manipulated statistics we haven't seen yet.

(Hint: If you had said that more guns = more GUN crime, I would have given you a pass and said you are just uninformed and biased. But, clearly, you are making a statement that the presence of guns increases ALL crime, which has been proven false continuously. That, simply, is either intentional prevarication or intellectual dishonesty. You choose.)

 

[Markle]

Their position after Vegas was to call for a national CCW law.

If you were as informed as you believe you are, you would know that making CCW reciprocity law was proposed months ago.

 

[Markle]

And nobody has a problem with your doing that. What people will have a problem with, should it happen, is your deciding that a person or situation has riled you so that you aim your gun in the direction of human being. We've recently seen at least two instances wherein presumably sensible gun users, presumably like you are, did just that.

The question is how can we tell who is likely to "lose it" and become the next people killer? The answer, of course, is that we don't know how to make that determination. Does our ignorance in that regard mean that we should put limits on everyone's access to guns until we can get a reasonably clear picture of how to tell?

I think so and I do because that's what one does to manage to a minimum probability of materializing the risk of unwanted outcomes. Is there an outcome any more undesirable than one person causing the abrupt and involuntary death, maiming or injury of another? My system of ethics says there is not.

When I'm unsure of whether to invest in a company, do I just fork over my money anyway and hope for the best? Of course, I don't. I wait until I have enough information to make a wise choice about what course of action I'll follow. Does my financial advisor suggest a purchase without providing me with his rationale for why I should make it? No, not at all. Did the firm that purchased my company do so without reviewing our performance, financial position, assets, networks, vetting my and my other key partners' backgrounds, etc? Absolutely not. Does one's doctor schedule an appendectomy merely because one complains of a pain in their abdomen? No.

When it comes to guns and the risk that a gun owner's weapon might be used to, deliberately and against another's will, kill, maim or injure them, attenuating that risk is the very opposite of how conservatives would have us handle the matter. Their rationale, in essence, is to let anyone buy a gun and, well, trust that they won't misuse it, to just see what happens. Well, so-called conservatives, that approach is anything but conservative. What is conservatism but a predilection for being risk averse? What is a conservative approach other than that of anticipating detriments and acting to preempt their manifestation?

Now, I imagine myopic readers will see that last sentence and think "owning/carrying a gun is a person's way of being ready to handle a threatening situation that may arise." It may well be that; however, that's not preemptive action. It's preparing a reaction, and when it comes to gun misuse, what I'm talking about is taking action before the fact of the gun's misuse, not after the fact.

There is also the matter that no single individual's need to protect themselves is greater than the whole of society's need to attenuate the risk of the misuse of guns, which, unlike most other implements that one may use to hurt or kill another, have no primary purpose other than to hurt or kill.

Bows and arrows are also "point and shoot" ranged weapons that have essentially the same purposes and facility as guns and can be used with equal effectiveness, yet we don't see people using them to effect criminal activity nor to deter would be assailants. Indeed, one does not even need much in the way of resources to have one; a very effective set can be fabricated by anyone from items freely available to everyone. (How hard can it be? Humans have been making them for over 50K years. They were crucial to our survival, and clearly we did survive for here we are, so it's not as though they don't work.)

So why is it gun misuse is phenomenon we observe, yet bow and arrow misuse is not? I'd posit that it's because a gun is just too damned easy to misuse, but it could instead or also be that guns increase people's gall. The truth is I don't know, and neither does anyone else, which contributes to our not being able to choose an effective attenuation approach. What I do know is that people, too many of them, are given to misusing guns and and almost nobody is predisposed to do that with a bow and arrows or other ranged weapons. That tells me that we need an effective means of curtailing gun misuse.

So, "Mr. Hunter," I don't want you to not eat. I don't want to deny you whatever pleasure you derive from the hunt. Is there a reason you can't hunt with a bow and arrows? Do you have only one arm? I merely don't want your gun being used to hurt or kill someone, and we know that there's absolutely no trend or pattern of people using bows and arrows to perform arbitrary or planned killings and criminal acts.

So, what assurances have we, as a society, that you won't one day "flip out and shoot someone? What assurances have we, as a society, that another person won't obtain your gun and misuse it? We both know the answer is none that are credible. What we know, at least right now, is that if you don't have a gun, it cannot be misused.

So what approach do I suggest for effecting a solution to gun violence?

1. Repeal the "Dickey Amendment."
2. Enact a seven year, automatically ending, prohibition on the use (outside of shooting competition events and shooting ranges where one might practice for such events), sale and exchange of semi-automatic firearms. (Mainly to allow time for the studies to be performed with due rigor.)
3. Commission a comprehensive set of studies to determine:
   • What causes gun violence/misuse
   • What are the indicators of one's "flipping out" and misusing a gun
   • How to test for those causes and indicators
4. Enact onerous, strict liability, penalties throughout the supply chain -- manufacturer to distributor to shipper to seller to consumer -- for being party to the sequence of events whereby a gun one built or bought was used to kill or hurt another individual.
   • Because responsible people who care about the general welfare and who have possession of a firearm have a responsibility to exert a hell of a lot of prudent control over it to make sure they don't lose it to someone who has no business possessing a firearm.
   • Because if one has a gun, and one is responsible, one is going to exercise a hell of a lot of judicious control over it ,and when using it; thus one isn't going to have to pay any penalty.
5. Upon the completion of the studies, implement laws and procedures in accordance with the findings.

Much easier and CONSTITUTIONAL is this:

 

[Markle]

All of those guns are owned by only 20% of the people. You people are nuts.

I can assure you that like most gun owners if I received a call from someone conducting a poll asking me if I owned any guns and what kind, I would immediately say NO.

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) – A recent Gallup Poll found that 60 percent of Americans own guns in order to feel safe.
October 29, 2013 12:40 PM

When the research group asked a random sampling of 309 gun-owning American adults as to the reasons for owning one, the vast majority cited a desire to protect themselves.

After that, 36 percent said they owned them for hunting, while 13 percent use them for recreation. Only 5 percent cited the Second Amendment as motivation, despite its frequent use as a talking point on the issue.

Gallup: 60 Percent Of Americans Own Guns For 'Personal Safety'

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, it does. You are simply, clueless and Causeless.

Could you, perhaps, explain how the Law of Large Numbers applies to gun control? Enlighten us ...

Averages.

Proof you don't even understand the Law of Large Numbers. Did you sleep in that day? Missed class because you were sitting in your safe place eating yogurt. The LLN has absolutely nothing to do with averages.

I'll try to make it simple - the LLN simply says that as the sample increases, the probability of an occurrence will move closer to the reality of occurrence. For example, if we know that 1 out of every 2 million people have diamonds inserted in their rectums, as the sample grows, the probability of that occurring within our sample increases accordingly. Therefore, if we were to sample 350 million people, the probability that one of them have diamonds in their rectum approaches virtual certainty.

Based on that, I have only two questions ----

1) Do the diamonds hurt?
2) What the hell does that have to do with gun control?

More guns=more crime.

That has been proven demonstrably false a million times. Unless, of course, you have some new artificially manipulated statistics we haven't seen yet.

(Hint: If you had said that more guns = more GUN crime, I would have given you a pass and said you are just uninformed and biased. But, clearly, you are making a statement that the presence of guns increases ALL crime, which has been proven false continuously. That, simply, is either intentional prevarication or intellectual dishonesty. You choose.)

No, more guns don't equal more crime.

However a higher availability of guns often leads to more murders.

There are variable of course. You can't really compare poor third world countries with first world countries. Many different situations will lead to many different scenarios. A country with strong government control over its people will generally have lower rates of crime, for example.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And nobody has a problem with your doing that. What people will have a problem with, should it happen, is your deciding that a person or situation has riled you so that you aim your gun in the direction of human being. We've recently seen at least two instances wherein presumably sensible gun users, presumably like you are, did just that.

The question is how can we tell who is likely to "lose it" and become the next people killer? The answer, of course, is that we don't know how to make that determination. Does our ignorance in that regard mean that we should put limits on everyone's access to guns until we can get a reasonably clear picture of how to tell?

I think so and I do because that's what one does to manage to a minimum probability of materializing the risk of unwanted outcomes. Is there an outcome any more undesirable than one person causing the abrupt and involuntary death, maiming or injury of another? My system of ethics says there is not.

When I'm unsure of whether to invest in a company, do I just fork over my money anyway and hope for the best? Of course, I don't. I wait until I have enough information to make a wise choice about what course of action I'll follow. Does my financial advisor suggest a purchase without providing me with his rationale for why I should make it? No, not at all. Did the firm that purchased my company do so without reviewing our performance, financial position, assets, networks, vetting my and my other key partners' backgrounds, etc? Absolutely not. Does one's doctor schedule an appendectomy merely because one complains of a pain in their abdomen? No.

When it comes to guns and the risk that a gun owner's weapon might be used to, deliberately and against another's will, kill, maim or injure them, attenuating that risk is the very opposite of how conservatives would have us handle the matter. Their rationale, in essence, is to let anyone buy a gun and, well, trust that they won't misuse it, to just see what happens. Well, so-called conservatives, that approach is anything but conservative. What is conservatism but a predilection for being risk averse? What is a conservative approach other than that of anticipating detriments and acting to preempt their manifestation?

Now, I imagine myopic readers will see that last sentence and think "owning/carrying a gun is a person's way of being ready to handle a threatening situation that may arise." It may well be that; however, that's not preemptive action. It's preparing a reaction, and when it comes to gun misuse, what I'm talking about is taking action before the fact of the gun's misuse, not after the fact.

There is also the matter that no single individual's need to protect themselves is greater than the whole of society's need to attenuate the risk of the misuse of guns, which, unlike most other implements that one may use to hurt or kill another, have no primary purpose other than to hurt or kill.

Bows and arrows are also "point and shoot" ranged weapons that have essentially the same purposes and facility as guns and can be used with equal effectiveness, yet we don't see people using them to effect criminal activity nor to deter would be assailants. Indeed, one does not even need much in the way of resources to have one; a very effective set can be fabricated by anyone from items freely available to everyone. (How hard can it be? Humans have been making them for over 50K years. They were crucial to our survival, and clearly we did survive for here we are, so it's not as though they don't work.)

So why is it gun misuse is phenomenon we observe, yet bow and arrow misuse is not? I'd posit that it's because a gun is just too damned easy to misuse, but it could instead or also be that guns increase people's gall. The truth is I don't know, and neither does anyone else, which contributes to our not being able to choose an effective attenuation approach. What I do know is that people, too many of them, are given to misusing guns and and almost nobody is predisposed to do that with a bow and arrows or other ranged weapons. That tells me that we need an effective means of curtailing gun misuse.

So, "Mr. Hunter," I don't want you to not eat. I don't want to deny you whatever pleasure you derive from the hunt. Is there a reason you can't hunt with a bow and arrows? Do you have only one arm? I merely don't want your gun being used to hurt or kill someone, and we know that there's absolutely no trend or pattern of people using bows and arrows to perform arbitrary or planned killings and criminal acts.

So, what assurances have we, as a society, that you won't one day "flip out and shoot someone? What assurances have we, as a society, that another person won't obtain your gun and misuse it? We both know the answer is none that are credible. What we know, at least right now, is that if you don't have a gun, it cannot be misused.

So what approach do I suggest for effecting a solution to gun violence?

1. Repeal the "Dickey Amendment."
2. Enact a seven year, automatically ending, prohibition on the use (outside of shooting competition events and shooting ranges where one might practice for such events), sale and exchange of semi-automatic firearms. (Mainly to allow time for the studies to be performed with due rigor.)
3. Commission a comprehensive set of studies to determine:
   • What causes gun violence/misuse
   • What are the indicators of one's "flipping out" and misusing a gun
   • How to test for those causes and indicators
4. Enact onerous, strict liability, penalties throughout the supply chain -- manufacturer to distributor to shipper to seller to consumer -- for being party to the sequence of events whereby a gun one built or bought was used to kill or hurt another individual.
   • Because responsible people who care about the general welfare and who have possession of a firearm have a responsibility to exert a hell of a lot of prudent control over it to make sure they don't lose it to someone who has no business possessing a firearm.
   • Because if one has a gun, and one is responsible, one is going to exercise a hell of a lot of judicious control over it ,and when using it; thus one isn't going to have to pay any penalty.
5. Upon the completion of the studies, implement laws and procedures in accordance with the findings.

Much easier and CONSTITUTIONAL is this:

And do you know what it means? I bet you don't.

 

[Markle]

Statistics? More guns=more crime.

 

[Auld Phart]

And nobody has a problem with your doing that. What people will have a problem with, should it happen, is your deciding that a person or situation has riled you so that you aim your gun in the direction of human being. We've recently seen at least two instances wherein presumably sensible gun users, presumably like you are, did just that.

The question is how can we tell who is likely to "lose it" and become the next people killer? The answer, of course, is that we don't know how to make that determination. Does our ignorance in that regard mean that we should put limits on everyone's access to guns until we can get a reasonably clear picture of how to tell?

I think so and I do because that's what one does to manage to a minimum probability of materializing the risk of unwanted outcomes. Is there an outcome any more undesirable than one person causing the abrupt and involuntary death, maiming or injury of another? My system of ethics says there is not.

When I'm unsure of whether to invest in a company, do I just fork over my money anyway and hope for the best? Of course, I don't. I wait until I have enough information to make a wise choice about what course of action I'll follow. Does my financial advisor suggest a purchase without providing me with his rationale for why I should make it? No, not at all. Did the firm that purchased my company do so without reviewing our performance, financial position, assets, networks, vetting my and my other key partners' backgrounds, etc? Absolutely not. Does one's doctor schedule an appendectomy merely because one complains of a pain in their abdomen? No.

When it comes to guns and the risk that a gun owner's weapon might be used to, deliberately and against another's will, kill, maim or injure them, attenuating that risk is the very opposite of how conservatives would have us handle the matter. Their rationale, in essence, is to let anyone buy a gun and, well, trust that they won't misuse it, to just see what happens. Well, so-called conservatives, that approach is anything but conservative. What is conservatism but a predilection for being risk averse? What is a conservative approach other than that of anticipating detriments and acting to preempt their manifestation?

Now, I imagine myopic readers will see that last sentence and think "owning/carrying a gun is a person's way of being ready to handle a threatening situation that may arise." It may well be that; however, that's not preemptive action. It's preparing a reaction, and when it comes to gun misuse, what I'm talking about is taking action before the fact of the gun's misuse, not after the fact.

There is also the matter that no single individual's need to protect themselves is greater than the whole of society's need to attenuate the risk of the misuse of guns, which, unlike most other implements that one may use to hurt or kill another, have no primary purpose other than to hurt or kill.

Bows and arrows are also "point and shoot" ranged weapons that have essentially the same purposes and facility as guns and can be used with equal effectiveness, yet we don't see people using them to effect criminal activity nor to deter would be assailants. Indeed, one does not even need much in the way of resources to have one; a very effective set can be fabricated by anyone from items freely available to everyone. (How hard can it be? Humans have been making them for over 50K years. They were crucial to our survival, and clearly we did survive for here we are, so it's not as though they don't work.)

So why is it gun misuse is phenomenon we observe, yet bow and arrow misuse is not? I'd posit that it's because a gun is just too damned easy to misuse, but it could instead or also be that guns increase people's gall. The truth is I don't know, and neither does anyone else, which contributes to our not being able to choose an effective attenuation approach. What I do know is that people, too many of them, are given to misusing guns and and almost nobody is predisposed to do that with a bow and arrows or other ranged weapons. That tells me that we need an effective means of curtailing gun misuse.

So, "Mr. Hunter," I don't want you to not eat. I don't want to deny you whatever pleasure you derive from the hunt. Is there a reason you can't hunt with a bow and arrows? Do you have only one arm? I merely don't want your gun being used to hurt or kill someone, and we know that there's absolutely no trend or pattern of people using bows and arrows to perform arbitrary or planned killings and criminal acts.

So, what assurances have we, as a society, that you won't one day "flip out and shoot someone? What assurances have we, as a society, that another person won't obtain your gun and misuse it? We both know the answer is none that are credible. What we know, at least right now, is that if you don't have a gun, it cannot be misused.

So what approach do I suggest for effecting a solution to gun violence?

1. Repeal the "Dickey Amendment."
2. Enact a seven year, automatically ending, prohibition on the use (outside of shooting competition events and shooting ranges where one might practice for such events), sale and exchange of semi-automatic firearms. (Mainly to allow time for the studies to be performed with due rigor.)
3. Commission a comprehensive set of studies to determine:
   • What causes gun violence/misuse
   • What are the indicators of one's "flipping out" and misusing a gun
   • How to test for those causes and indicators
4. Enact onerous, strict liability, penalties throughout the supply chain -- manufacturer to distributor to shipper to seller to consumer -- for being party to the sequence of events whereby a gun one built or bought was used to kill or hurt another individual.
   • Because responsible people who care about the general welfare and who have possession of a firearm have a responsibility to exert a hell of a lot of prudent control over it to make sure they don't lose it to someone who has no business possessing a firearm.
   • Because if one has a gun, and one is responsible, one is going to exercise a hell of a lot of judicious control over it ,and when using it; thus one isn't going to have to pay any penalty.
5. Upon the completion of the studies, implement laws and procedures in accordance with the findings.

Much easier and CONSTITUTIONAL is this:

And do you know what it means? I bet you don't.

tell us, oh wise one, what does it mean?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Their position after Vegas was to call for a national CCW law.

If you were as informed as you believe you are, you would know that making CCW reciprocity law was proposed months ago.

Which of course in no way contradicts what I said. It was their position in response to Vegas.


"In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans’ Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities. To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence."

 

[Hutch Starskey]

All of those guns are owned by only 20% of the people. You people are nuts.

I can assure you that like most gun owners if I received a call from someone conducting a poll asking me if I owned any guns and what kind, I would immediately say NO.

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) – A recent Gallup Poll found that 60 percent of Americans own guns in order to feel safe.
October 29, 2013 12:40 PM

When the research group asked a random sampling of 309 gun-owning American adults as to the reasons for owning one, the vast majority cited a desire to protect themselves.

After that, 36 percent said they owned them for hunting, while 13 percent use them for recreation. Only 5 percent cited the Second Amendment as motivation, despite its frequent use as a talking point on the issue.

Gallup: 60 Percent Of Americans Own Guns For 'Personal Safety'

That's the stated reason that 60% of GUN OWNERS gave as to why they own a gun. That's not 60% of the population, dope.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And nobody has a problem with your doing that. What people will have a problem with, should it happen, is your deciding that a person or situation has riled you so that you aim your gun in the direction of human being. We've recently seen at least two instances wherein presumably sensible gun users, presumably like you are, did just that.

The question is how can we tell who is likely to "lose it" and become the next people killer? The answer, of course, is that we don't know how to make that determination. Does our ignorance in that regard mean that we should put limits on everyone's access to guns until we can get a reasonably clear picture of how to tell?

I think so and I do because that's what one does to manage to a minimum probability of materializing the risk of unwanted outcomes. Is there an outcome any more undesirable than one person causing the abrupt and involuntary death, maiming or injury of another? My system of ethics says there is not.

When I'm unsure of whether to invest in a company, do I just fork over my money anyway and hope for the best? Of course, I don't. I wait until I have enough information to make a wise choice about what course of action I'll follow. Does my financial advisor suggest a purchase without providing me with his rationale for why I should make it? No, not at all. Did the firm that purchased my company do so without reviewing our performance, financial position, assets, networks, vetting my and my other key partners' backgrounds, etc? Absolutely not. Does one's doctor schedule an appendectomy merely because one complains of a pain in their abdomen? No.

When it comes to guns and the risk that a gun owner's weapon might be used to, deliberately and against another's will, kill, maim or injure them, attenuating that risk is the very opposite of how conservatives would have us handle the matter. Their rationale, in essence, is to let anyone buy a gun and, well, trust that they won't misuse it, to just see what happens. Well, so-called conservatives, that approach is anything but conservative. What is conservatism but a predilection for being risk averse? What is a conservative approach other than that of anticipating detriments and acting to preempt their manifestation?

Now, I imagine myopic readers will see that last sentence and think "owning/carrying a gun is a person's way of being ready to handle a threatening situation that may arise." It may well be that; however, that's not preemptive action. It's preparing a reaction, and when it comes to gun misuse, what I'm talking about is taking action before the fact of the gun's misuse, not after the fact.

There is also the matter that no single individual's need to protect themselves is greater than the whole of society's need to attenuate the risk of the misuse of guns, which, unlike most other implements that one may use to hurt or kill another, have no primary purpose other than to hurt or kill.

Bows and arrows are also "point and shoot" ranged weapons that have essentially the same purposes and facility as guns and can be used with equal effectiveness, yet we don't see people using them to effect criminal activity nor to deter would be assailants. Indeed, one does not even need much in the way of resources to have one; a very effective set can be fabricated by anyone from items freely available to everyone. (How hard can it be? Humans have been making them for over 50K years. They were crucial to our survival, and clearly we did survive for here we are, so it's not as though they don't work.)

So why is it gun misuse is phenomenon we observe, yet bow and arrow misuse is not? I'd posit that it's because a gun is just too damned easy to misuse, but it could instead or also be that guns increase people's gall. The truth is I don't know, and neither does anyone else, which contributes to our not being able to choose an effective attenuation approach. What I do know is that people, too many of them, are given to misusing guns and and almost nobody is predisposed to do that with a bow and arrows or other ranged weapons. That tells me that we need an effective means of curtailing gun misuse.

So, "Mr. Hunter," I don't want you to not eat. I don't want to deny you whatever pleasure you derive from the hunt. Is there a reason you can't hunt with a bow and arrows? Do you have only one arm? I merely don't want your gun being used to hurt or kill someone, and we know that there's absolutely no trend or pattern of people using bows and arrows to perform arbitrary or planned killings and criminal acts.

So, what assurances have we, as a society, that you won't one day "flip out and shoot someone? What assurances have we, as a society, that another person won't obtain your gun and misuse it? We both know the answer is none that are credible. What we know, at least right now, is that if you don't have a gun, it cannot be misused.

So what approach do I suggest for effecting a solution to gun violence?

1. Repeal the "Dickey Amendment."
2. Enact a seven year, automatically ending, prohibition on the use (outside of shooting competition events and shooting ranges where one might practice for such events), sale and exchange of semi-automatic firearms. (Mainly to allow time for the studies to be performed with due rigor.)
3. Commission a comprehensive set of studies to determine:
   • What causes gun violence/misuse
   • What are the indicators of one's "flipping out" and misusing a gun
   • How to test for those causes and indicators
4. Enact onerous, strict liability, penalties throughout the supply chain -- manufacturer to distributor to shipper to seller to consumer -- for being party to the sequence of events whereby a gun one built or bought was used to kill or hurt another individual.
   • Because responsible people who care about the general welfare and who have possession of a firearm have a responsibility to exert a hell of a lot of prudent control over it to make sure they don't lose it to someone who has no business possessing a firearm.
   • Because if one has a gun, and one is responsible, one is going to exercise a hell of a lot of judicious control over it ,and when using it; thus one isn't going to have to pay any penalty.
5. Upon the completion of the studies, implement laws and procedures in accordance with the findings.

Much easier and CONSTITUTIONAL is this:

And do you know what it means? I bet you don't.

tell us, oh wise one, what does it mean?

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

I can prove it all too, however I've been blown off so many times by people like you even when they're faced with so much evidence, it's ridiculous.

 

[Auld Phart]

And nobody has a problem with your doing that. What people will have a problem with, should it happen, is your deciding that a person or situation has riled you so that you aim your gun in the direction of human being. We've recently seen at least two instances wherein presumably sensible gun users, presumably like you are, did just that.

The question is how can we tell who is likely to "lose it" and become the next people killer? The answer, of course, is that we don't know how to make that determination. Does our ignorance in that regard mean that we should put limits on everyone's access to guns until we can get a reasonably clear picture of how to tell?

I think so and I do because that's what one does to manage to a minimum probability of materializing the risk of unwanted outcomes. Is there an outcome any more undesirable than one person causing the abrupt and involuntary death, maiming or injury of another? My system of ethics says there is not.

When I'm unsure of whether to invest in a company, do I just fork over my money anyway and hope for the best? Of course, I don't. I wait until I have enough information to make a wise choice about what course of action I'll follow. Does my financial advisor suggest a purchase without providing me with his rationale for why I should make it? No, not at all. Did the firm that purchased my company do so without reviewing our performance, financial position, assets, networks, vetting my and my other key partners' backgrounds, etc? Absolutely not. Does one's doctor schedule an appendectomy merely because one complains of a pain in their abdomen? No.

When it comes to guns and the risk that a gun owner's weapon might be used to, deliberately and against another's will, kill, maim or injure them, attenuating that risk is the very opposite of how conservatives would have us handle the matter. Their rationale, in essence, is to let anyone buy a gun and, well, trust that they won't misuse it, to just see what happens. Well, so-called conservatives, that approach is anything but conservative. What is conservatism but a predilection for being risk averse? What is a conservative approach other than that of anticipating detriments and acting to preempt their manifestation?

Now, I imagine myopic readers will see that last sentence and think "owning/carrying a gun is a person's way of being ready to handle a threatening situation that may arise." It may well be that; however, that's not preemptive action. It's preparing a reaction, and when it comes to gun misuse, what I'm talking about is taking action before the fact of the gun's misuse, not after the fact.

There is also the matter that no single individual's need to protect themselves is greater than the whole of society's need to attenuate the risk of the misuse of guns, which, unlike most other implements that one may use to hurt or kill another, have no primary purpose other than to hurt or kill.

Bows and arrows are also "point and shoot" ranged weapons that have essentially the same purposes and facility as guns and can be used with equal effectiveness, yet we don't see people using them to effect criminal activity nor to deter would be assailants. Indeed, one does not even need much in the way of resources to have one; a very effective set can be fabricated by anyone from items freely available to everyone. (How hard can it be? Humans have been making them for over 50K years. They were crucial to our survival, and clearly we did survive for here we are, so it's not as though they don't work.)

So why is it gun misuse is phenomenon we observe, yet bow and arrow misuse is not? I'd posit that it's because a gun is just too damned easy to misuse, but it could instead or also be that guns increase people's gall. The truth is I don't know, and neither does anyone else, which contributes to our not being able to choose an effective attenuation approach. What I do know is that people, too many of them, are given to misusing guns and and almost nobody is predisposed to do that with a bow and arrows or other ranged weapons. That tells me that we need an effective means of curtailing gun misuse.

So, "Mr. Hunter," I don't want you to not eat. I don't want to deny you whatever pleasure you derive from the hunt. Is there a reason you can't hunt with a bow and arrows? Do you have only one arm? I merely don't want your gun being used to hurt or kill someone, and we know that there's absolutely no trend or pattern of people using bows and arrows to perform arbitrary or planned killings and criminal acts.

So, what assurances have we, as a society, that you won't one day "flip out and shoot someone? What assurances have we, as a society, that another person won't obtain your gun and misuse it? We both know the answer is none that are credible. What we know, at least right now, is that if you don't have a gun, it cannot be misused.

So what approach do I suggest for effecting a solution to gun violence?

1. Repeal the "Dickey Amendment."
2. Enact a seven year, automatically ending, prohibition on the use (outside of shooting competition events and shooting ranges where one might practice for such events), sale and exchange of semi-automatic firearms. (Mainly to allow time for the studies to be performed with due rigor.)
3. Commission a comprehensive set of studies to determine:
   • What causes gun violence/misuse
   • What are the indicators of one's "flipping out" and misusing a gun
   • How to test for those causes and indicators
4. Enact onerous, strict liability, penalties throughout the supply chain -- manufacturer to distributor to shipper to seller to consumer -- for being party to the sequence of events whereby a gun one built or bought was used to kill or hurt another individual.
   • Because responsible people who care about the general welfare and who have possession of a firearm have a responsibility to exert a hell of a lot of prudent control over it to make sure they don't lose it to someone who has no business possessing a firearm.
   • Because if one has a gun, and one is responsible, one is going to exercise a hell of a lot of judicious control over it ,and when using it; thus one isn't going to have to pay any penalty.
5. Upon the completion of the studies, implement laws and procedures in accordance with the findings.

Much easier and CONSTITUTIONAL is this:

And do you know what it means? I bet you don't.

tell us, oh wise one, what does it mean?

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

I can prove it all too, however I've been blown off so many times by people like you even when they're faced with so much evidence, it's ridiculous.

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

Odd, isn't it?

That they gave the right to the people, and not just the militia?

 

[frigidweirdo]

And nobody has a problem with your doing that. What people will have a problem with, should it happen, is your deciding that a person or situation has riled you so that you aim your gun in the direction of human being. We've recently seen at least two instances wherein presumably sensible gun users, presumably like you are, did just that.

The question is how can we tell who is likely to "lose it" and become the next people killer? The answer, of course, is that we don't know how to make that determination. Does our ignorance in that regard mean that we should put limits on everyone's access to guns until we can get a reasonably clear picture of how to tell?

I think so and I do because that's what one does to manage to a minimum probability of materializing the risk of unwanted outcomes. Is there an outcome any more undesirable than one person causing the abrupt and involuntary death, maiming or injury of another? My system of ethics says there is not.

When I'm unsure of whether to invest in a company, do I just fork over my money anyway and hope for the best? Of course, I don't. I wait until I have enough information to make a wise choice about what course of action I'll follow. Does my financial advisor suggest a purchase without providing me with his rationale for why I should make it? No, not at all. Did the firm that purchased my company do so without reviewing our performance, financial position, assets, networks, vetting my and my other key partners' backgrounds, etc? Absolutely not. Does one's doctor schedule an appendectomy merely because one complains of a pain in their abdomen? No.

When it comes to guns and the risk that a gun owner's weapon might be used to, deliberately and against another's will, kill, maim or injure them, attenuating that risk is the very opposite of how conservatives would have us handle the matter. Their rationale, in essence, is to let anyone buy a gun and, well, trust that they won't misuse it, to just see what happens. Well, so-called conservatives, that approach is anything but conservative. What is conservatism but a predilection for being risk averse? What is a conservative approach other than that of anticipating detriments and acting to preempt their manifestation?

Now, I imagine myopic readers will see that last sentence and think "owning/carrying a gun is a person's way of being ready to handle a threatening situation that may arise." It may well be that; however, that's not preemptive action. It's preparing a reaction, and when it comes to gun misuse, what I'm talking about is taking action before the fact of the gun's misuse, not after the fact.

There is also the matter that no single individual's need to protect themselves is greater than the whole of society's need to attenuate the risk of the misuse of guns, which, unlike most other implements that one may use to hurt or kill another, have no primary purpose other than to hurt or kill.

Bows and arrows are also "point and shoot" ranged weapons that have essentially the same purposes and facility as guns and can be used with equal effectiveness, yet we don't see people using them to effect criminal activity nor to deter would be assailants. Indeed, one does not even need much in the way of resources to have one; a very effective set can be fabricated by anyone from items freely available to everyone. (How hard can it be? Humans have been making them for over 50K years. They were crucial to our survival, and clearly we did survive for here we are, so it's not as though they don't work.)

So why is it gun misuse is phenomenon we observe, yet bow and arrow misuse is not? I'd posit that it's because a gun is just too damned easy to misuse, but it could instead or also be that guns increase people's gall. The truth is I don't know, and neither does anyone else, which contributes to our not being able to choose an effective attenuation approach. What I do know is that people, too many of them, are given to misusing guns and and almost nobody is predisposed to do that with a bow and arrows or other ranged weapons. That tells me that we need an effective means of curtailing gun misuse.

So, "Mr. Hunter," I don't want you to not eat. I don't want to deny you whatever pleasure you derive from the hunt. Is there a reason you can't hunt with a bow and arrows? Do you have only one arm? I merely don't want your gun being used to hurt or kill someone, and we know that there's absolutely no trend or pattern of people using bows and arrows to perform arbitrary or planned killings and criminal acts.

So, what assurances have we, as a society, that you won't one day "flip out and shoot someone? What assurances have we, as a society, that another person won't obtain your gun and misuse it? We both know the answer is none that are credible. What we know, at least right now, is that if you don't have a gun, it cannot be misused.

So what approach do I suggest for effecting a solution to gun violence?

1. Repeal the "Dickey Amendment."
2. Enact a seven year, automatically ending, prohibition on the use (outside of shooting competition events and shooting ranges where one might practice for such events), sale and exchange of semi-automatic firearms. (Mainly to allow time for the studies to be performed with due rigor.)
3. Commission a comprehensive set of studies to determine:
   • What causes gun violence/misuse
   • What are the indicators of one's "flipping out" and misusing a gun
   • How to test for those causes and indicators
4. Enact onerous, strict liability, penalties throughout the supply chain -- manufacturer to distributor to shipper to seller to consumer -- for being party to the sequence of events whereby a gun one built or bought was used to kill or hurt another individual.
   • Because responsible people who care about the general welfare and who have possession of a firearm have a responsibility to exert a hell of a lot of prudent control over it to make sure they don't lose it to someone who has no business possessing a firearm.
   • Because if one has a gun, and one is responsible, one is going to exercise a hell of a lot of judicious control over it ,and when using it; thus one isn't going to have to pay any penalty.
5. Upon the completion of the studies, implement laws and procedures in accordance with the findings.

Much easier and CONSTITUTIONAL is this:

And do you know what it means? I bet you don't.

tell us, oh wise one, what does it mean?

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

I can prove it all too, however I've been blown off so many times by people like you even when they're faced with so much evidence, it's ridiculous.

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

Odd, isn't it?

That they gave the right to the people, and not just the militia?

No, it's not odd.

The problem with the whole 2A thing is that the right have distorted the 2A to mean what they want it to mean, and ignoring hundreds of years of history in the process. The left are fighting back against the right and then distorting the 2A to mean what they want it to mean.

So you have an argument of two lots of people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about, and anyone that does know gets ignored and told to fuck off repeatedly.

Don't you love partisan politics?

Wouldn't it make more sent to have proportional representation so there'd be more political parties, more voices, more choice and less bullshit?

 

[Auld Phart]

Much easier and CONSTITUTIONAL is this:

And do you know what it means? I bet you don't.

tell us, oh wise one, what does it mean?

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

I can prove it all too, however I've been blown off so many times by people like you even when they're faced with so much evidence, it's ridiculous.

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

Odd, isn't it?

That they gave the right to the people, and not just the militia?

No, it's not odd.

The problem with the whole 2A thing is that the right have distorted the 2A to mean what they want it to mean, and ignoring hundreds of years of history in the process. The left are fighting back against the right and then distorting the 2A to mean what they want it to mean.

So you have an argument of two lots of people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about, and anyone that does know gets ignored and told to fuck off repeatedly.

Don't you love partisan politics?

Wouldn't it make more sent to have proportional representation so there'd be more political parties, more voices, more choice and less bullshit?

and you, alone, know the real meaning?

The reasoning behind the 2nd is: "which means the right to be in the militia."

At the time the 2nd was written, to be in the militia, one must be male, between the ages of 16-45, (57 in one or more areas).

Is it your claim that women are not allowed to own firearms, nor can males under the age of 16, nor over the age of 45?

 

[danielpalos]

Statistics? More guns=more crime.

gun safety laws may account for that. just like automobiles, for a comparison and contrast.

 

[danielpalos]

Statistics? More guns=more crime.

And, cherry picking Only gun homicides is special pleading.

What about accidents. More guns = more potential gun accidents.

 

[danielpalos]

Statistics? More guns=more crime.

Furthermore, I have to question the methodology, since it doesn't hold true in Chicago.

 

[Spare_change]

And nobody has a problem with your doing that. What people will have a problem with, should it happen, is your deciding that a person or situation has riled you so that you aim your gun in the direction of human being. We've recently seen at least two instances wherein presumably sensible gun users, presumably like you are, did just that.

The question is how can we tell who is likely to "lose it" and become the next people killer? The answer, of course, is that we don't know how to make that determination. Does our ignorance in that regard mean that we should put limits on everyone's access to guns until we can get a reasonably clear picture of how to tell?

I think so and I do because that's what one does to manage to a minimum probability of materializing the risk of unwanted outcomes. Is there an outcome any more undesirable than one person causing the abrupt and involuntary death, maiming or injury of another? My system of ethics says there is not.

When I'm unsure of whether to invest in a company, do I just fork over my money anyway and hope for the best? Of course, I don't. I wait until I have enough information to make a wise choice about what course of action I'll follow. Does my financial advisor suggest a purchase without providing me with his rationale for why I should make it? No, not at all. Did the firm that purchased my company do so without reviewing our performance, financial position, assets, networks, vetting my and my other key partners' backgrounds, etc? Absolutely not. Does one's doctor schedule an appendectomy merely because one complains of a pain in their abdomen? No.

When it comes to guns and the risk that a gun owner's weapon might be used to, deliberately and against another's will, kill, maim or injure them, attenuating that risk is the very opposite of how conservatives would have us handle the matter. Their rationale, in essence, is to let anyone buy a gun and, well, trust that they won't misuse it, to just see what happens. Well, so-called conservatives, that approach is anything but conservative. What is conservatism but a predilection for being risk averse? What is a conservative approach other than that of anticipating detriments and acting to preempt their manifestation?

Now, I imagine myopic readers will see that last sentence and think "owning/carrying a gun is a person's way of being ready to handle a threatening situation that may arise." It may well be that; however, that's not preemptive action. It's preparing a reaction, and when it comes to gun misuse, what I'm talking about is taking action before the fact of the gun's misuse, not after the fact.

There is also the matter that no single individual's need to protect themselves is greater than the whole of society's need to attenuate the risk of the misuse of guns, which, unlike most other implements that one may use to hurt or kill another, have no primary purpose other than to hurt or kill.

Bows and arrows are also "point and shoot" ranged weapons that have essentially the same purposes and facility as guns and can be used with equal effectiveness, yet we don't see people using them to effect criminal activity nor to deter would be assailants. Indeed, one does not even need much in the way of resources to have one; a very effective set can be fabricated by anyone from items freely available to everyone. (How hard can it be? Humans have been making them for over 50K years. They were crucial to our survival, and clearly we did survive for here we are, so it's not as though they don't work.)

So why is it gun misuse is phenomenon we observe, yet bow and arrow misuse is not? I'd posit that it's because a gun is just too damned easy to misuse, but it could instead or also be that guns increase people's gall. The truth is I don't know, and neither does anyone else, which contributes to our not being able to choose an effective attenuation approach. What I do know is that people, too many of them, are given to misusing guns and and almost nobody is predisposed to do that with a bow and arrows or other ranged weapons. That tells me that we need an effective means of curtailing gun misuse.

So, "Mr. Hunter," I don't want you to not eat. I don't want to deny you whatever pleasure you derive from the hunt. Is there a reason you can't hunt with a bow and arrows? Do you have only one arm? I merely don't want your gun being used to hurt or kill someone, and we know that there's absolutely no trend or pattern of people using bows and arrows to perform arbitrary or planned killings and criminal acts.

So, what assurances have we, as a society, that you won't one day "flip out and shoot someone? What assurances have we, as a society, that another person won't obtain your gun and misuse it? We both know the answer is none that are credible. What we know, at least right now, is that if you don't have a gun, it cannot be misused.

So what approach do I suggest for effecting a solution to gun violence?

1. Repeal the "Dickey Amendment."
2. Enact a seven year, automatically ending, prohibition on the use (outside of shooting competition events and shooting ranges where one might practice for such events), sale and exchange of semi-automatic firearms. (Mainly to allow time for the studies to be performed with due rigor.)
3. Commission a comprehensive set of studies to determine:
   • What causes gun violence/misuse
   • What are the indicators of one's "flipping out" and misusing a gun
   • How to test for those causes and indicators
4. Enact onerous, strict liability, penalties throughout the supply chain -- manufacturer to distributor to shipper to seller to consumer -- for being party to the sequence of events whereby a gun one built or bought was used to kill or hurt another individual.
   • Because responsible people who care about the general welfare and who have possession of a firearm have a responsibility to exert a hell of a lot of prudent control over it to make sure they don't lose it to someone who has no business possessing a firearm.
   • Because if one has a gun, and one is responsible, one is going to exercise a hell of a lot of judicious control over it ,and when using it; thus one isn't going to have to pay any penalty.
5. Upon the completion of the studies, implement laws and procedures in accordance with the findings.

Much easier and CONSTITUTIONAL is this:

And do you know what it means? I bet you don't.

Much easier and CONSTITUTIONAL is this:

And do you know what it means? I bet you don't.

tell us, oh wise one, what does it mean?

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

I can prove it all too, however I've been blown off so many times by people like you even when they're faced with so much evidence, it's ridiculous.

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

Odd, isn't it?

That they gave the right to the people, and not just the militia?

No, it's not odd.

The problem with the whole 2A thing is that the right have distorted the 2A to mean what they want it to mean, and ignoring hundreds of years of history in the process. The left are fighting back against the right and then distorting the 2A to mean what they want it to mean.

So you have an argument of two lots of people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about, and anyone that does know gets ignored and told to fuck off repeatedly.

Don't you love partisan politics?

Wouldn't it make more sent to have proportional representation so there'd be more political parties, more voices, more choice and less bullshit?

It's interesting that the pro-gun control crowd claims that the whole 2A thing is a big misunderstanding - that the founders didn't mean EVERYBODY should be able to have a gun, just those in a "militia".

But, yet, if you read the words of the founders, it is clear that an armed citizenry is EXACTLY what they meant. Further, they absolutely intended it to act as a means with which to prevent government abuse.

====================================================

In THEIR words (I highlighted a few particularly pointed ones):
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"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, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They 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."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"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 might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, 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. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"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, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


To which, I can only add:

If they said it, it must be true. And, if it was true then, it must be true now.

 

[Spare_change]

Statistics? More guns=more crime.

And, cherry picking Only gun homicides is special pleading.

What about accidents. More guns = more potential gun accidents.

i suggest you do your research, and then come back and apologize. The presence of guns means LESS crime - it even means less "gun accidents" per 100,000.

Check it out ....