FINALLY!!!! a good decision

Page 5 of 6  
Tom Lawrence wrote:


Show me solid proof that gun owners are less prone to be a victim of a gun related crime (not crimes in general). What I'm looking for is stats for total gun related crimes, Then a break down that splits it and shows numbers against gun owners. Showing number of prevented crimes in general means little when theres nothing to relate it against. Furthermore my original point was gun related crimes. For instance, how many potential murders were prevented for the single reason the would be victim was a gun owner and used it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Jimbo wrote: | <<Snip>>
| | Whoa here!! I agree, a gun safety and use course is a great thing! I | just dont understand why its brought up in the context of gun crime. It | wont do a thing to help crime. Criminals won't take the course and | could careless. | | Rarely are crimes foiled by a gun owner. I have never seen any stats | that show that gun owners are less common to be a victim of a gun | related crime against them.
Yeah, that's right, but since we have been tossing around both sides of the problem, I wasn't addressing responsibilities of the bad guys because they've already shown their propensities, they're criminals. I was addressing it from the standpoint of the good guys arming themselves for self-protection, and whether it works or not I guess, depends on where you are. Just today for example, some guy downtown (Pensacola) thwarted a home invasion because he was armed. The bad guy is in the hospital; No charges against the home owner. They have to be able to do it right. That's all that I am saying at this point.
--



PcolaPhil


When you are dissatisfied and would like to go back to youth,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jimbo wrote:

The USA has more guns per capita than just about any other country in the world. With your logic our crime rate should be really low as a result. Instead our crime rate is rather high. Thats all I'm trying to say. I'm not anti gun, I own one. But I don't buy into the BS that more guns in society results in lower crime because people can protect and prevent them. World crime stats vs. number of guns per capita just doesn't show that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Jimbo wrote: | | | > I was addressing it from the standpoint of the good guys arming | > themselves for self-protection, and whether it works or not I guess, | > depends on where you are. Just today for example, some guy downtown | > (Pensacola) thwarted a home invasion because he was armed. | | The USA has more guns per capita than just about any other country in | the world. With your logic our crime rate should be really | low as a result. Instead our crime rate is rather high. Thats all I'm | trying to say. I'm not anti gun, I own one. But I don't buy into the | BS that more guns in society results in lower crime because people can | protect and prevent them. World crime stats vs. number of guns per | capita just doesn't show that.
And I didn't say that more guns per se, would make everything safer, but I will say that guns in the hands of the Good Guys will go a long way to help. And too many people who study these stats closer than I say that crime is reduced when good guys have guns to protect themselves. And I am for it. It is time to put down the uglies.
--



PcolaPhil


When you are dissatisfied and would like to go back to youth,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Thompson wrote:

David: "As an American constitutional lawyer who has studied in the United States, I have observed that most Americans quote the second amendment to the constitution without knowing what it means or indeed, what it intended to achieve at the time it was created. Like any historical document, it needs to be considered in the context in which it was written. The amendment reads: "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 purpose of this amendment, in my view and that of many scholars, was only to establish the legitimacy of a militia, whether standing or otherwise. To 'bear' arms as was intended in the amendment, means to carry arms for a military, or in this case a lawful militia regulated purpose. A hunter or recreational shooter does not 'bear arms'. To keep arms in this instance means that a militiaman could keep his rifle so as to be able to participate in a militia without the need for district armouries which could be destroyed or captured by an enemy and therefore eliminate the ability of the militia to arm themselves. How any American living in 2007, or even in the last 100 years, could try to interpret that this amendment justifies their right to carry and use firearms as individual citizens is a subject for debate. However, in my opinion it is preposterous. It was not what the authors of the constitution intended and I am amazed that American lawmakers continue to allow widespread misinterpretation to prevail."
http://tinyurl.com/2nma3g
People continually quote words of the 2nd Amendment, and invariably one side will leave out the beginning "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," and just give the rest of the sentence after the comma. You do that, don't you, Tom Lawrence?
--
In girum imus nocte
et consumimur igni
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

David is one constitutional lawyer that needs to do more research.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
NapalmHeart wrote:

Ha, research... this has been researched to death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution is enough research-overload for me. There's no one consistent interpretation of what the amendment says. In the hands of professional politicians, it's so flexible that it's meaningless.
--
In girum imus nocte
et consumimur igni
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't ignore it, no - but I do believe the 2nd protects an individual's right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms... and I have an ex-Attorney General and several current District Court judges that agree with me, as well as many states' Constitutions.
Who's on your team?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Lawrence wrote:

If you read the early versions of the 2nd amendment prior to passage and text of discussions at the time it becomes more clear what the intentions were during that time.
If you don't ignore the first part of the 2nd amendment then what does it mean to you and what is your historical reference to support it?
I believe it was all a mis-wording. It was intended that we have the right to arm bears.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And I think it was intended so that if the government became tyrannical, the populace would be armed and capable of overthrowing it. I believe that our forefathers knew that an armed populace would be the last line of defense against tyrants and their henchmen taking over.
I (me) think that was the intent, and all the rest that happened since the original writing has little to do with those actual ideas, and more to do with the perception that it was aimed at the rights of citizens re: weapon ownership.
Just my two pennies.
I could be wrong. I thought I was once, but was merely mistaken.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve B wrote:

I disagree. That logic has been stated many times but without historical reference to back it up. If you read the early versions of the 2nd amendment and the discussions and writings from those involved at the time you may come to a different conclusion. Yes they wanted an armed populous for defense but I dont believe the main issue was from within.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some reading for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve B wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text Wikipedia is a users forum for the most part. However, it does make these points:
That King Henry I and II armed the populous for defense, but not from the tyranny of the king.
Madison wrote "that the State governments, with the people on their side", clearly his intention was not for arming people against their own government.
Again Madison wrote "united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence". Keyword here "United" with the government...not against it.
The anti-federalists are the ones that came up in part the argument you refer to. But they weren't the original author of the amendment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
miles wrote:

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger." - James Madison
Clearly he was talking about State governments' well-regulated militias opposing a Federal gov't army.

If there was one original author, it apparently was some guy named James Madison... the same guy that explained it's about state militias.
--
In girum imus nocte
et consumimur igni
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Beryl wrote:

Yes but not because of a threat from the federal government. At the time the threat was from overseas and the federal and state governments were rather thinly based. A state militia was the only way individual states could provide a level of protection for themselves.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
miles wrote:

You snipped Madison's quote.
"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger."
He's talking about the State militias being able to repel the danger of a Federal force.
It's explained the same way elsewhere on the wikipedia page too, with calculations that the militias would outnumber the federal forces. Both sides had the same rifles, strength would come through sheer numbers.
It's rather obsolete thinking today. "The People" don't have Apache helicopters.
--
In girum imus nocte
et consumimur igni
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now, back to my original point.
My statement was that I thought the second amendment was at least partially about keeping the citizenry armed as a means to protect itself against tyrannical government as much as from invaders or others against the republic.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve B wrote:

In order for it to get passed compromises were made to appease the anti-federalists. However, the amendment was primarily written by the federalists.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Whatever! Sorry you still missed my point.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve B wrote:

No, I did. But you fail to realize the order of events, discussions and writings leading up to the finalized version of the amendment. Most of such was with regard to forming a state militia for defense from foreign enemies. That was their greatest fear and it was the federalists who did the most work toward creating and passing the 2nd amendment. The references you refer to are mostly from the anti-federalists and statements made by federalists to appease them to the it passed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.