The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

you really feel you know me well enough to call me a racist and a homophobe, huh?
No, I do not, and that's fair.

But I know you well enough to cal you someone who needs to shut the fuck up.

btw, milo, I am serious about my question for you.

I would feel comfortable calling him a gun fetishist with a Rambo fantasy.

Well played, professor.

ivory tower, that's me.

Oh, I know THAT, partner.

Like so many of America's problems, I'm just glad we don't have it nearly as bad here, and we don't get to claim any superiority for it. We've got tons of gun control but I'm pretty sure that if we had as many guns in circulation as America does, no amount of laws would stop us shooting each other all the time.

Scotland had 3 gun deaths in 2005, but plenty of stabbings and bottlings to compensate. The small number of gun deaths is only because there are so few guns about, relatively. Any talk of gun control in the US has to propose some method of taking all the guns away, which would seem to be a practically impossible feat.

Not to mention, totally unconstitutional and all kinds of WRONG.

I'm still pretty pro-gun even with my antipathy to gun activism, Kenan. In my experience, the only real nutters are the people who fetishize guns as a source of power over others.

Why would it be wrong to have no guns (constitution aside)?

Any talk of gun control in the US has to propose some method of taking all the guns away, which would seem to be a practically impossible feat.

initially, maybe, YES, stet otm. But goddamnit, when shit like this happens, if you take NO steps to take a few guns out of circulation, you're a little... immoral.

I'm interested in the answer to stet's question.

I'm also thinking that kenan needs to stop romanticizing gun control as a panacea.

Oh, I LOOOOOOOVE this:

(constitution aside)

I would genuinely be interested to see someone outside of the US who has Roger's attitude to gun rights/ownership. I really don't want to believe that this "right" to guns as self defense ahead of everything else is purely an American thing.

Aus/European/Britishers, anyone pro gun?

dan, i am doing no such thing.

likelyhood

Likelihood. Sorry Dan.

kenan - What guns do we take 'out of circulation?' The ones in the 'bad' neighborhoods? And how do we do that, exactly?

So is the constitution the only good reason to have guns? I mean even to the point where we'd have to invent them if they weren't invented, to fulfil this constitutional role?

Of course not. Why do you seem to only argue in abstractions?

Let's not let this become a 'if it weren't for guns, you'd be goose-stepping right now' kind of debate. Because it can very easily become that kind of debate.

Why would it be wrong to have no guns (constitution aside)?

That's a very tough question, because it assumes a state that shows no favoritism toward any particular group (ethnicity, class, etc..).

One of the examples featured in the aforementioned Harper's article (sadly only available if you're a subscriber) was the funeral of a black lynched in the '50s. Another group of racists came to
Firearms were present throughout most of the Civil Rights struggle - they were a necessity to protect people against both the police and private actors.

Many of the gun control laws we have were designed to favor privileged whites over others - licensing in the South, prohibtions against carrying in California (used by Reagan against the Black Panthers).

It's a popular myth on the pro-gun side that you need guns to be able to fight off the Fascist Black Helicopters or damned UN Invaders, etc.. Clearly that's absurd - small arms are no more going to beat back a fascist federal govt. than ice cream cones.

But arms in the hands of individuals - Civil Rights workers/defenders, unionizers, women at risk from men - do empower those people a great deal.

of a black man lynched in the '50s for talking back to his employer, that is.

Likelihood. Sorry Dan.

No, I deserved that.

BTW, this is the full text of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

There is a heavy implication in this sentence construction that people need the right to bear arms in case the need to act as part of an organized militia. There is absolutely nothing there about personal safety or personal self-defense; rather, this Amendment concerns itself with the private citizen's contribution to the safety and defense of the country at large. I think that's a completely seperate issue.

ok, I just went searching through posts on the last thread that contradicted my claiming gun control as anything other than the solution

came up blank

dan has me cold

ok, still didn't complete that thought, sorry. Trying again - the example was about the funeral of a black man in Virginia in the '50s who had been lynched. At the funeral home a group of racists came to take his body for defilement - and were met by the man's friends and relatives holding their family shotguns. His body was not taken.

ps Dan's take is one reason I try to consider gun control/lack of on purely pragmatic grounds. My reading is that the amendment gives the state the right to heavily regulate firearms far more than we've ever seen, short of an absolute prohibition. That's not a very useful guideline, IMO.

That's a good answer, but is it essentially saying that violence is a key solution for underclasses of whatever stripe? Also: I doubt his body would have been taken if they'd all been holding big machetes either xp

Hi Dere - thankfully, the Supreme Court does not agree with you, sir.

That's a good answer, but is it essentially saying that violence is a key solution for underclasses of whatever stripe?

The threat of violence? The potential for it, maybe? Or at least the potential for the underclass to stand up for itself against the Pinkertons or the Klan or Fred Phelps?

It sounds extreme, but I can't say we've progressed beyond the need.

'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

Always seemed pretty clear to me

You never answered the question, "Whose guns, kenan?"

I think that Milo's point is that visible self-protection for underclasses is a very important tool in self-defense. I don't disagree with that stance but I don't think that was what was in mind when the 2nd Amendment was written, which is why I have a problem with it being used to justify carrying guns for self-preservation. In a lot of ways, it's like the Deuteronomy of the Bill of Rights.

(haha I couldn't have asked for a better xpost; you don't get to chop off the first half of that sentence if you want to use the text to make a coherent and honest point, Roger)

http://hematite.com/dragon/StateRights.html

One of the arguments often heard from the gun control people is that the Second Amendment to the Constitution really refers to some sort of "collective" right, not an individual right. If this were true, one would think that the Second Amendment would have been better written to explain that. And if that were true, one would think that the individual states would have expressed a "collective" right in their own constitutions. Yet, 43 out of 50 states have their own version of the Second Amendment and none of them, zero, zip, zilch, nada, mention any form of "collective" right.

Some selections (43) to choose from:

ALABAMA "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Ala. Const. Art. I, Sect. 26

ALASKA "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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."
Alaska Const. Art. I, Sect. 19 [second sentence added Nov. 1994]

ARIZONA "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."
Ariz. Const. Art. 2, Sect. 26

ARKANSAS "The citizens of this state shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense."
Ark. Const. Art. II, Sect. 5

COLORADO "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."
Colo. Const. Art. II, Sect. 13

CONNECTICUT "Every citizens has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Conn. Const. Art. I, Sect. 15

DELAWARE "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."
Del. Const. Art. I, Sect. 20

FLORIDA "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."
Fla. Const. Art. I, Sect. 8

GEORGIA "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne."
Ga. Const. Art. I, Sect. I, para. VIII

HAWAII "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."
Haw. Const. art I, Sect. 15

IDAHO "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person, nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony."
Idaho Const. Art. I, Sect. 11

ILLINOIS "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Ill. Const. Art. I, Sect. 22

INDIANA "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
Ind. Const. Art. I, Sect. 32

KANSAS "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."
Kansas Bill Of Rights, Sect. 4

KENTUCKY "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: .... Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, subject to the power of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons."
Ky. Bill Of Rights, Sect. 1, para. 7

LOUISIANA "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person."
La. Const. Art. I, Sect. 11

MAINE "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned."
Me. Const. Art. I, S16

MASSACHUSETTS "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it."
Mass. Decl. Of Rights, pt. I, art. XVII

MICHIGAN "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."
Mich. Const. Art. I, Sect. 6

MISSISSIPPI "The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons."
Miss. Const. Art. 3, Sect. 12

MISSOURI "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."
Mo. Const. Art. I, Sect. 23

MONTANA "The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."
Mont. Const. Art. II, Sect. 12

NEBRASKA "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are ... the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof."
Neb. Const. Art. I, Sect. 1

NEVADA "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes."
Nev. Const. Art. 1, Sect. II, para. 1

NEW HAMPSHIRE "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state."
N. H. Const. part 1, art. 2-a.

NEW MEXICO "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."
N. M. Const. Art. II, Sect. 6

NORTH CAROLINA "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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the carrying of concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice."
N. C. Const. Art. I, Sect. 30

NORTH DAKOTA "All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are ... to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed."
N. D. Const. Art. I, Sect. 1

OHIO "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."
Ohio Const. Art. I, Sect. 4

OKLAHOMA "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons."
Okla. Const. Art. 2, Sect. 26

OREGON "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power."
Or. Const. Art. I, Sect. 27

PENNSYLVANIA "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Pa. Const. Art. I, Sect. 21

RHODE ISLAND "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
R. I. Const. Art. I, Sect. 22

SOUTH CAROLINA "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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law."
S. C. Const. Art. I, Sect. 20

SOUTH DAKOTA "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied."
S. D. Const. Art. VI, Sect. 24

TENNESSEE "That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."
Tenn. Const. Art. I, Sect. 26

TEXAS "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."
Tex. Const. Art. I, Sect. 23

UTAH "The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the State, as well as for the other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms."
Utah Const. Art. I, Sect. 6

VERMONT "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to the civil power."
Vt. Const. Ch. I, art. 16

VIRGINIA "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Va. Const. art I, Sect. 13

WASHINGTON "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."
Wash. Const. Art. I, Sect. 24

WEST VIRGINIA "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use."
W. Va. Const. Art. III, Sect. 22

WYOMING "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied."
Wyo. Const. Art. I, Sect. 24

Seven (7) states do not have a constitutional provision on arms: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin. [Source: U. Dayton Law Rev. v.15, pp. 84-89 (1989)]

You seem to be taking it as gospel though, Manalishi, instead of a philosophy like any other -- and just as likely to be flawed.

It sounds extreme, but I can't say we've progressed beyond the need.

What need. Talk in specific terms about the need. Talk about what you would do to those people.

I don't disagree with that stance but I don't think that was what was in mind when the 2nd Amendment was written,

I agree 100%. The rest of the Constitution was written for propertied white males - I sincerely doubt that they intended to throw a bone to the underclass with this one.

xpost But it isn't flawed. The language seems pretty definite to me. It IS gospel. From my cold dead hands etc etc...

My wife works in the US, which is about a mile from our home. After her first day of work 16 years ago, she came home in tears. I asked her what was up and she said she got into a political discussion at work, but it quickly spiralled into something else. My brother-in-law, who was over at the time, said "Rule #1: Never get into a political discussion with an American that you don't know", suggesting that often many Americans are working with a different set of assumptions than, say, the average Canadian.

She now says that this is most evident with regards to the issue of gun ownership. She says that, though most of her co-workers do not own any guns, many of them feverishly argue for the "right" to own them without question, as if this was a right they would fight and die for.

It just seems more than a bit odd to us. But then again, so do guns in general.

xposts!

I really dont see how the upside of owning guns privately outweighs all of the death and stuff that happens that involves guns. sure, i know that some of the violence would happen no matter what. some people will kill with knifes or axes or whatever anyway, but such mass killings would never happen.

what are the pros of having guns? I know that the constitution says that its ok that we have them, but what are the real reasons we need them? I know that some people say that they feel more secure and protected. Now, i cant speak for everyone, especially since i have lived in a nice area all of my life, but how often has any ILXor ever had to use a gun or other weapon in self-defense in their homes? i know that some ILXors have been mugged or attacked in public... but then again, most places wont even allow most people to carry concealed weapons.

Mr. Fidelity said that he enjoyed the feel and liked shooting guns. while i truly hope you have more important reasons for gun ownership, do these pros outweigh the cons of thousands of gun deaths every year? am i just being idealistic or does it make sense that one would give up simple pleasures for the betterment of all?

I just feel that all the robberies that may happen because of no guns outweigh the massive loss of life we see in the United States as a result of guns. I would gladly get a couple hundred of my dvds stolen if it meant there were no guns on the street. i am sure hundreds of thousands of other people must feel the same way. basically, life is not replacable.

milo's point is well-taken and definitely brings up a great point and shows a very tough gray area for me. but couldnt other weapons such as knifes or maybe larger blunt objects make a similar statement of "dont come close to us or we will hurt you"?

The tradition of securing a military force through a duty of universal military obligation for all able-bodied males follows from the Elizabethan era militia in England.[1][2]

The English Declaration of Rights (1689) affirmed freedom for Protestants to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."[6] When Colonists protested British efforts to disarm their militias in the early phases of the Revolution, colonists cited the Declaration of Rights, Blackstone's summary of the Declaration of Rights, their own militia laws, and Common Law rights to self-defense. While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the militia, there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense. Indeed, in his arguments on behalf of British troops in the Boston Massacre, John Adams invoked the common law of self-defense.[3]

Some have seen the Second Amendment as derivative of a common law right to keep and bear arms; Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, March 1997, Page 781, have stated "... Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment--the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."[4]

Others perceive a distinction between the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense; Robert Spitzer has stated: "..the matter of personal or individual self-defense, whether from wild animals or modern-day predators, does not fall within, nor is it dependent on, the Second Amendment rubric. Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection. Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law."[5] Heyman has similarly argued that the common law right of self defense was legally distinct from the right to bear arms.[6]

The potential connection between the right of self defense and the new constitutional protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment depends on the distinction whether 'keep and bear arms' is synonymous more broadly with the right of individual self defense or does 'keep and bear arms' pertain more narrowly towards use of arms in a military context, or, in the case of the Common Law while still under the British, in service of the king and country. This distinction was not subject to serious judicial notice until the first gun control laws were passed in the Jacksonian era. Judges in the nineteenth century split over how to interpret this connection; some saw the Common Law right and the protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment as identical; others viewed these as being legally distinct. Texts from the era of the Second Amendment are largely silent on this important question.

[...]

In the early months of 1789, the United States was engaged in an ideological conflict between Federalists who favored a stronger central government and Antifederalists skeptical of a strong central government. This conflict was accentuated by the recent news of a brewing, potentially violent, revolution in France with similar Antifederal tensions. Also, the conflict in beliefs continued between northern states, that generally favored Federalist values, and southern states that tended to share Antifederalist values.

Intense concerns gripped the country of the potential for success or failure of these newly-formed United States. The first presidential inauguration of George Washington had occurred just a few short weeks earlier. A spirited public concern and debate from this time is captured in numerous heated newspaper articles, personal diaries and letters from this pivotal time in United States history.

Antifederalists supported the proposal to amend the Constitution with clearly-defined and enumerated rights to provide further constraints on the new government, while opponents felt that by listing only certain rights, other unlisted rights would fail to be protected. Amidst this debate, a compromise was reached and James Madison drafted what ultimately would become the United States Bill of Rights and that was proposed to the Congress on June 8, 1789.

The original text[12] of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

It should be noted the Bill of Rights that Madison introduced on June 8 were not numbered amendments intended to be added at the end of the Constitution. The Rights instead were to be inserted into the existing Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was not to be inserted in Article 1, section 8 that specifies Congress's power over the militia. The sentence that later became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights asserted by individuals as a defense against government action.[13] (Additionally, these provisions can all be interpreted as limits on congressional power, a view that has been advanced by supporters of the individual rights view of the Amendment.[14]) Debate in the House on the remainder of the 8th focused again on whether or not a Bill of Rights was appropriate, and the matter was held for a later time. On July 21, however, Madison raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[15] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. No official records were kept of the proceedings of the committee, but on July 28 the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment.[16] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:[17]

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

The Second Amendment itself was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17 and August 20.[18] These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24 the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

On September 4, the Senate voted to change significantly the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence", next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated.[19] The Senate then slightly modified the language, and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21 to accept the changes made by the Senate, however the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

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.[20]

This version was transmitted to the states for ratification.

xpost That's why no one ever calls on a Canadian when they're raising up a posse, I guess.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
(yes, I know; I'm kind of surprised that there's no statement of Madison asserting man's right to hen fap)

eg I'm in the UK, and we've got no such right, and precious few gun deaths. In the past century we also had a union movement strong enough that the govt sent in tanks to deal with it and suffragettes getting the vote. We didn't have anything to compare to the black lynching things though, and I can see how guns would have been a huge help there.

<i>But it isn't flawed. The language seems pretty definite to me. It IS gospel. From my cold dead hands etc etc...</i>
The whole point of this debate is to question it -- and there are people who obviously think the idea of everyone having a gun is deeply flawed!

fuk nu ilx

xpost

Even our rappers can't get a posse!

hahaha stet

xpost



milo's point is well-taken and definitely brings up a great point and shows a very tough gray area for me. but couldnt other weapons such as knifes or maybe larger blunt objects make a similar statement of "dont come close to us or we will hurt you"?

Nothing says "fuck off" like a gun though, does it?

...Not that I'm pro-gun. I never even want to handle a gun. They don't give me the horn at all.

Todd, if the worst 'crime' that ever befalls you is losing all your DVDs, I'd say you lived a life full of luck, my friend.

My example was an aside - I CAN make a case for owning a gun - and I have several times on this thread. I was just saying that, beyond all that, I don't HAVE to justify it. I own guns. I always will. And I've never shot anyone. Never had an AD. Never been arrested on a felony for anything. And I never had to buy a burglar alarm.

You start a thread about gun control, you kinda DO have to justify it

Droone - here's hoping you never find yourself in a situation where you HAVE to handle a gun and, because of willfull ignorance, don't know how.

My wife hated guns and to a large degre still objects to the sheer amount that we have in our home. BUT she is no longr uncomfortable around guns and knows that, in a pinch, she can use one if she has to. The very notion of that brings me great comfort. But then, I love my wife.

Hardly "willfull".

Wow

Today is the 11-year mark of Sandy Hook and still nothing has changed. We just released this video @DemocracyMoms with our partners called Thoughts & Prayers. We hope you follow us there and donate to the cause to help us get this on the air. #gunreform https://t.co/DY98A3nvEB pic.twitter.com/ftbg0Soj96

— Mothers4Democracy/MothersAgainstGregAbbott (@MomsAGAbbott) December 14, 2023