The Right To Bear Arms

[hadit]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

So, basically because there are SOME morons, you want to limit or take away a RIGHT from all citizens unless YOU feel they are worthy to practice a constitutionally guaranteed right?

Yes, exactly. I am responding to the thread topic: the right to bear arms is obsolete. Period.

So change the Constitution. Until then, you're just complaining and going nowhere.

 

[2aguy]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

And thanks for proving the Founders right when some of them insisted on codifying our God given right to self defense in the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment....they saw you and your ilk coming over 200 years ago.......

 

[2aguy]

So now Brain357 , now you can STOP asking why the US has a higher murder rate than some other countries. The answer is gang violence. Now, do you want to ban black people?

That seems like a rather silly question. How about background checks on private sales and registration?

How will this stop criminals.....since felons can't legally own guns now.....and how will registration do anything....since felons are protected by a supreme court ruling from having to register their illegal guns....self incrimination and all that.......so only law abiding citizens will have to register their guns....which is, and has always been one of the two steps toward banning and forced turn ins.......and does nothing to stop crime or solve crime....

Brain.....what exactly does registering a gun do to solve or prevent a crime? Please....tell us....

 

[2aguy]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

So, basically because there are SOME morons, you want to limit or take away a RIGHT from all citizens unless YOU feel they are worthy to practice a constitutionally guaranteed right?

Yes, exactly. I am responding to the thread topic: the right to bear arms is obsolete. Period.

Explain that to the Jews killed in the death camps....or the Kulaks killed by the communists....or the Mexicans today killed by the drug cartels working with the Mexican government, or the people of Detroit Michigan who can't get the police to help them, or the hundreds of thousands of Rwandan's killed by machete....or the Kenyans killed by boko haram in their thousands.....or the journalists at the French magazine or the Deli customers in France or the people involved in the terrorist attacks in Belgium, Canada, and Australia

The right to keep and bear arms will never be obsolete......

 

[2aguy]

Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....

Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....

And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....

Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said

See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......

And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....

No Bill you miss the point.
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity. Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.

You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......

 

[Brain357]

Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....

And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....

Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said

See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......

And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....

No Bill you miss the point.
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity. Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.

You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......

No we have his very clear quote. Most are criminals.

 

[2aguy]

You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....

And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....

Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said

See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......

And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....

No Bill you miss the point.
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity. Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.

You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......

No we have his very clear quote. Most are criminals.

This quote says it all from Kleck....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

To briefly summarize:

Defensive gun uses by crime victims are three to four times more common than crimes committed with guns;

Victim gun use is associated with lower rates of assault or robbery victim injury and lower rates of robbery completion than any other defensive action or doing nothing to resist;

Serious predatory criminals perceive a risk from victim gun use that is roughly comparable to that of criminal-justice-system actions, and this perception may influence their criminal behavior in socially desirable ways.

 

[Brain357]

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said

See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......

And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....

No Bill you miss the point.
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity. Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.

You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......

No we have his very clear quote. Most are criminals.

This quote says it all from Kleck....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.

 

[2aguy]

See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......

And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....

No Bill you miss the point.
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity. Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.

You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......

No we have his very clear quote. Most are criminals.

This quote says it all from Kleck....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.

Because Kleck specifically addresses your point....these are law abiding citizens carrying guns because they are afraid of actual criminals.....not criminals conducting criminal business...

Consequently, police never hear about the bulk of successful defensive gun uses, instead hearing mostly about an unrepresentative minority of them containing a disproportionately large number of failures. Further, even when they do receive a report of a crime that in fact involved a gun-wielding victim, the victim has strong legal reasons for leaving their own gun use out of their account of the crime. Since most defensive gun uses occur away from the victim's home, and few victims have the required permits for carrying concealed weapons in public, most gun uses probably involved a crime on the part of the victim.

Of course, he means that in the 90s, when his survey was conducted, many states denied the rights of their citizens to carry guns for protection, so rather than be a victim, they performed acts of civil disobedience and carried their guns anyway....

But don't worry Brain.....law abiding ctizens can now carry guns in all 50 states to some degree....so they now have their right to carry a gun restored.....to the tune of 11.1 million concealed carry permit holders.....

 

[Flash]

[

Exactly. The government is not to be trusted. They will use every loop hole, like calling something a "tax."

That is the problem.

People in power will interpret the laws and in a way so they or their special interest groups can benefit from it.

A Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper (or parchment) it is written on unless the people are willing to enforce compliance and that is why we need the right to keep and bear arms.

We may not have the courage to use the arms when government is abusive, like we are seeing nowadays, but at least we have the option.

 

[Ernie S.]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
As for your guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?

How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
That's reasonable, isn't it?

 

[Ernie S.]

You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....

And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....

Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said

See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......

And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....

No Bill you miss the point.
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity. Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.

You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......

No we have his very clear quote. Most are criminals.

Provide the quote in context. Post a link to it. You keep posting words which you attribute to Kleck but so far I have been unable to find evidence that he did and meant what you claim.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.

Fortunately, your opinion runs contrary to established fact and law.

Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities.

Ah... the ad hom. Sure sign you have no counter to their argument(s)

Now, did you have anything else?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The right to bear arms was not GIVEN to us by the Constitution. It is a right that PREDATES the Republic, and it was merely protected, explicitly, by the Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Two Thumbs]

A well armed popalance is respected by government
A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government

Oh please. What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law... Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!" Give me a frickin' break. Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever. See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.

It's populace btw, not populance.

Are you saying you want freedom loving, Constitution following Americans to get killed?

You only want freedom for the things you want. You don't want people with whom you disagree to have freedom.

well that's a fucking lie

or

proof you talk about shit you know nothing about

take your pick fool

 

[westwall]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

Most of the pro 2nd Amendment types here are far better educated than you will ever be. This is the USA and it was founded on the principle of equal rights for all. In your world of "privileges" the rich would have all the "rights" that we poor people enjoy now.

How fucked up a person you must be, to think that that's OK.

 

[Esmeralda]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

Most of the pro 2nd Amendment types here are far better educated than you will ever be. This is the USA and it was founded on the principle of equal rights for all. In your world of "privileges" the rich would have all the "rights" that we poor people enjoy now.

How fucked up a person you must be, to think that that's OK.

First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.


You are a prime example of the type, btw, who should not own a gun--ignorant and ridiculously arrogant with it: that’s a very bad combination which leads to anger management issues and poor reasoning.


As well you are in absolutely no position to be able to assess who is fucked up, being so desperately fucked up yourself. So fucked up you are laughable.

.

 

[Esmeralda]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
As for your guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?

How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
That's reasonable, isn't it?

You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun. Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures

I assure you : You cannot show any of my arguments to be unsound.

there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun

Both are rights, protected by the Constitution.
In that regard, they are similar.
Thus, a sound comparison.

 

[M14 Shooter]

First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.

You are a prime example of the type, btw, who should not own a gun--ignorant and ridiculously arrogant with it: that’s a very bad combination which leads to anger management issues and poor reasoning.

As well you are in absolutely no position to be able to assess who is fucked up, being so desperately fucked up yourself. So fucked up you are laughable.

This passes for reasoned discussion in your highly-educated circles?
So.... what happens when it's too cold to go out for recess?