The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[frigidweirdo]

That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:

Still doing it now.

They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.

You are proving my point.

And how is that?

Because with guns, these guys stand no fucking chance anyway against the US armed forces? You could give them the weaponry of a country like, oh, I don't know, let's say IRAQ, and they'd still get their asses kicked, wouldn't they?

So what is your point then?

The idea that random gun owners could somehow hold off a modern Army is an NRA fantasy

and funny how no one I know in the NRA says anything about taking on the government

I hate to burst your bubble but the vast majority of gun owners don't have fantasies of going to war with the US government

Maybe not, but there are enough out there especially among the Nazis, white supremacists and crackpots out there. But people talk about using guns to save themselves from the US govt, but then don't use their vote effectively to save themselves from the US govt. How ironic.

 

[Skull Pilot]

guns don't cause murder

there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop

Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.

Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.

They're not the problem
Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem

Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole

Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate

Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality.

Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.

Don't confuse incarceration rate with length of sentences or actual time served.

The fact is that less than half of all incarcerations were for violent crimes the rest were for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, property crimes and others like public disorder

Just because a person might have been incarcerated does not mean they spend much time in jail in fact violent offenders on average get 5 year sentences but are often out on probation in less than 4 years
Criminal Sentencing Statistics

So we revamp sentencing for nonviolent and property crimes and concentrate on incarcerating violent criminals especially those who commit a crime while in possession of a firearm.

Like I said for any crime less than murder 10 - 25 year minimum sentence no parole
Murder or grievous injury with a gun automatic life in prison no parole

If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time

I'm not. However if you put people away for longer, you'll have larger prison populations, won't you? Either way, the US is putting too many people away or putting them away for too long. There are some people who get put away for too long, others maybe not long enough, what remains a constant is that crime is a problem in the US, and nothing is being done to solve these problems, not the problems involving guns, and not the problems around other issues like education, family etc. Always the same rhetoric comes out that means nothing will ever get done.

Do you even read what I post

Did you miss this part

If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time

Violent offenders in 2012 made up less than half of the prison population and yet on average were out on probation in less than 4 years

 

[Skull Pilot]

Still doing it now.

They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.

You are proving my point.

And how is that?

Because with guns, these guys stand no fucking chance anyway against the US armed forces? You could give them the weaponry of a country like, oh, I don't know, let's say IRAQ, and they'd still get their asses kicked, wouldn't they?

So what is your point then?

The idea that random gun owners could somehow hold off a modern Army is an NRA fantasy

and funny how no one I know in the NRA says anything about taking on the government

I hate to burst your bubble but the vast majority of gun owners don't have fantasies of going to war with the US government

Maybe not, but there are enough out there especially among the Nazis, white supremacists and crackpots out there. But people talk about using guns to save themselves from the US govt, but then don't use their vote effectively to save themselves from the US govt. How ironic.

yeah a fraction of a percent is enough right?

 

[xyz]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"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

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“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

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"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

"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

“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

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

I do not disagree with what you are saying, but be aware that a militia can also overthrow a democratic government and put a dictatorship in its place.

 

[rightwinger]

The norm is this:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

The UK murder rate 0.9
France 1.2
Germany 0.9
Austria 0.5
Belgium 1.8
Luxembourg 0.8
Netherlands 0.7
Switzerland 0.5
Australia 1.0
New Zealand 0.9
Italy 0.8
Spain 0.7
Japan 0.3
South Korea 0.7
Canada 1.4

Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries

The USA 3.9

Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.

Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.

The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.

BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide

"For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."

So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.

In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.

What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.

guns don't cause murder

there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop

Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.

Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.

They're not the problem
Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem

Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole

Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate

Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality.

Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.

Don't confuse incarceration rate with length of sentences or actual time served.

The fact is that less than half of all incarcerations were for violent crimes the rest were for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, property crimes and others like public disorder

Just because a person might have been incarcerated does not mean they spend much time in jail in fact violent offenders on average get 5 year sentences but are often out on probation in less than 4 years
Criminal Sentencing Statistics

So we revamp sentencing for nonviolent and property crimes and concentrate on incarcerating violent criminals especially those who commit a crime while in possession of a firearm.

Like I said for any crime less than murder 10 - 25 year minimum sentence no parole
Murder or grievous injury with a gun automatic life in prison no parole

If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time

Regardless ....2.5 million is still 2.5 million

We have no problem finding replacements when someone is released. One reason we let them out early is we have a long line of convicts waiting to get in

Is it because we have more criminals or just petty zero tolerance laws that keep our prisons filled to overflowing?

 

[Skull Pilot]

guns don't cause murder

there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop

Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.

Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.

They're not the problem
Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem

Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole

Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate

Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality.

Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.

Don't confuse incarceration rate with length of sentences or actual time served.

The fact is that less than half of all incarcerations were for violent crimes the rest were for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, property crimes and others like public disorder

Just because a person might have been incarcerated does not mean they spend much time in jail in fact violent offenders on average get 5 year sentences but are often out on probation in less than 4 years
Criminal Sentencing Statistics

So we revamp sentencing for nonviolent and property crimes and concentrate on incarcerating violent criminals especially those who commit a crime while in possession of a firearm.

Like I said for any crime less than murder 10 - 25 year minimum sentence no parole
Murder or grievous injury with a gun automatic life in prison no parole

If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time

Regardless ....2.5 million is still 2.5 million

We have no problem finding replacements when someone is released. One reason we let them out early is we have a long line of convicts waiting to get in

Is it because we have more criminals or just petty zero tolerance laws that keep our prisons filled to overflowing?

It's OK if you want to be obtuse

And if you are going to respond at least read what I wrote

In case you couldn't comprehend what i said I'll rephrase

We need to stop incarcerating people for petty non violent offenses by using some alternate sentencing and concentrate on violent offenders

since less than half of all inmates are in jail for violent offenses if we stop jailing people for petty and nonviolent crimes and minor drug possessions we will be able to reduce our prison population considerably while still keeping the most dangerous people locked up and away from the public for a long time

The average prison sentence for violent offenders is 5 years but the average actual prison stay is less than 4 years.

Do you really want violent offenders to be given such short sentences?

 

[rightwinger]

Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.

That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.

People don't need to take up arms against the government. They simply need to own them and they will never have that problem. I think that was what the founders had in mind. Noah Webster had it right.

Our founders gave citizens much more powerful weapons to be used against government

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of the Press
A right to vote

 

[rightwinger]

Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.

Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.

They're not the problem
Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem

Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole

Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate

Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality.

Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.

Don't confuse incarceration rate with length of sentences or actual time served.

The fact is that less than half of all incarcerations were for violent crimes the rest were for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, property crimes and others like public disorder

Just because a person might have been incarcerated does not mean they spend much time in jail in fact violent offenders on average get 5 year sentences but are often out on probation in less than 4 years
Criminal Sentencing Statistics

So we revamp sentencing for nonviolent and property crimes and concentrate on incarcerating violent criminals especially those who commit a crime while in possession of a firearm.

Like I said for any crime less than murder 10 - 25 year minimum sentence no parole
Murder or grievous injury with a gun automatic life in prison no parole

If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time

Regardless ....2.5 million is still 2.5 million

We have no problem finding replacements when someone is released. One reason we let them out early is we have a long line of convicts waiting to get in

Is it because we have more criminals or just petty zero tolerance laws that keep our prisons filled to overflowing?

It's OK if you want to be obtuse

And if you are going to respond at least read what I wrote

In case you couldn't comprehend what i said I'll rephrase

We need to stop incarcerating people for petty non violent offenses by using some alternate sentencing and concentrate on violent offenders

since less than half of all inmates are in jail for violent offenses if we stop jailing people for petty and nonviolent crimes and minor drug possessions we will be able to reduce our prison population considerably while still keeping the most dangerous people locked up and away from the public for a long time

The average prison sentence for violent offenders is 5 years but the average actual prison stay is less than 4 years.

Do you really want violent offenders to be given such short sentences?

Depends

Are we talking assault or rape and murder?

 

[Skull Pilot]

They're not the problem
Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem

Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole

Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate

Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality.

Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.

Don't confuse incarceration rate with length of sentences or actual time served.

The fact is that less than half of all incarcerations were for violent crimes the rest were for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, property crimes and others like public disorder

Just because a person might have been incarcerated does not mean they spend much time in jail in fact violent offenders on average get 5 year sentences but are often out on probation in less than 4 years
Criminal Sentencing Statistics

So we revamp sentencing for nonviolent and property crimes and concentrate on incarcerating violent criminals especially those who commit a crime while in possession of a firearm.

Like I said for any crime less than murder 10 - 25 year minimum sentence no parole
Murder or grievous injury with a gun automatic life in prison no parole

If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time

Regardless ....2.5 million is still 2.5 million

We have no problem finding replacements when someone is released. One reason we let them out early is we have a long line of convicts waiting to get in

Is it because we have more criminals or just petty zero tolerance laws that keep our prisons filled to overflowing?

It's OK if you want to be obtuse

And if you are going to respond at least read what I wrote

In case you couldn't comprehend what i said I'll rephrase

We need to stop incarcerating people for petty non violent offenses by using some alternate sentencing and concentrate on violent offenders

since less than half of all inmates are in jail for violent offenses if we stop jailing people for petty and nonviolent crimes and minor drug possessions we will be able to reduce our prison population considerably while still keeping the most dangerous people locked up and away from the public for a long time

The average prison sentence for violent offenders is 5 years but the average actual prison stay is less than 4 years.

Do you really want violent offenders to be given such short sentences?

Depends

Are we talking assault or rape and murder?

It depends on the assault since technically just touching a person can be assault.

But since this is a thread about guns why don't we limit our discussion to that particular subject

If you want gun violence to be reduced then people who commit crimes while in the possession of a firearm have to be removed from society for a long time

So gun charges need to be primary charges and not pleaded down or dropped

All crimes committed while in possession of firearm need to be given felony status

All prison sentences for crimes committed with guns must be at least 10 years with no parole

Let's stop worrying about petty and nonviolent crimes and come up with some sort of alternate sentencing so we can concentrate on keeping violent people off the street and away from the public

 

[ding]

No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack

The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

 

[ding]

Blacks committed 4 times the per capita murders with guns than the national average. If blacks had just committed murders at the rate of the national average, our gun death rate would have dropped from 2.67 murders per 100,000 persons to 1.76 murders per 100,000 persons.

So when liberals talk about taking guns away, that is code for taking guns away from blacks.

Then again blacks are far more likely to be in poverty too. White people in poverty are more likely to use guns in crime, as are black people. But then it's easy to just take one statistic and float it around without looking at the whole situation, isn't it?

My goodness. One statistic. You need to go back and review the FBI's data, bro. It's that way across all of the violent crime types and has been that way ever since the FBI started compiling the data. The bottom line is that American's are not violent. Certain segments of America is, and since you are using our total statistics to inform your opinion, your opinion is being skewed by the segment which is skewing the data. Like I said, rather than worrying about guns, you just might to want to deal with the real root cause of the problem.

Blaming poverty is an excuse.

 

[ding]

Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).

List of freedom indices - Wikipedia

You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".

Hmm, and yet less gun violence.

Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.

But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.

Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.

That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:

Still doing it now.

They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.

You are proving my point.

And how is that?

Because with guns, these guys stand no fucking chance anyway against the US armed forces? You could give them the weaponry of a country like, oh, I don't know, let's say IRAQ, and they'd still get their asses kicked, wouldn't they?

So what is your point then?

I have explained this to you no less than three times. How dense are you? An armed populace is a deterrent against a government from usurping its authority.

 

[ding]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"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

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“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

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"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

"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

“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

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

I do not disagree with what you are saying, but be aware that a militia can also overthrow a democratic government and put a dictatorship in its place.

Sure, that too is possible, but our Founding Fathers were aware of that risk and we still have the 2nd Amendment, right?

 

[rightwinger]

No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack

The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

 

[ding]

Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.

That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.

People don't need to take up arms against the government. They simply need to own them and they will never have that problem. I think that was what the founders had in mind. Noah Webster had it right.

Our founders gave citizens much more powerful weapons to be used against government

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of the Press
A right to vote

And one last resort... the right to bear arms. Man were those guys smart.

 

[ding]

No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack

The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people. Your fringe arguments proved nothing.

 

[ding]

 

[Yarddog]

No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack

The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

Really? you cant be serious. If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide, than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed? Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed? It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it

 

[rightwinger]

No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack

The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people. Your fringe arguments proved nothing.

Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them

Lets look at the Nazis

They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium

In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers

 

[rightwinger]

No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack

The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

Really? you cant be serious. If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide, than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed? Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed? It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it

Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army