The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

arthwollipot said:
I admit, I have been avoiding this thread that I started over the weekend, largely because it has gone pretty much exactly how I thought it probably would. I've caught up now. I'm aware that I've been asked a number of direct questions, particularly early on in the thread, and I apologise that I won't be answering them. Suffice to say that your arguments do not convince me, and I remain firmly opposed to the private ownership of guns except (reluctantly) in the case of sport and subsistence hunting.
Click to expand...

So, basically you're using the Truther method to avoid answering questions, and sticking to your guns. We call that JAQing off. And I'm very disappointed that you, a poster I have had a lot of respect for, would do that. Damn. Oh well. Can't learn em all.
 
zooterkin said:
Since you don't have such a well regulated Militia any more, it clearly is not necessary to the security of a free state, and the dependent clause no longer applies.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you understood in context what a militia was, and what it entailed and referred to, you'd not make silly posts like this one.
 
3point14 said:
I really must remember that when speaking to some citizens of the USA about countries not on their continent, I must be very specific.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because it's someone else's fault your post wasn't clear, and since you know, this thread is about the USA......but yet it's someone else's fault....:rolleyes: (It's ok to admit that you weren't clear in your post. It really is. It's not a sign of weakness or anything.)
 
arthwollipot said:
I can see no rational reason for citizens of a civilised country to consider ownership of deadly weapons a "right".
Click to expand...
Where do you draw the line? Would you like to take away crossbows and compound bows but allow recurves? May I keep my hunting knives and machete? Can I keep a baseball bat by my bedside?

This year my daughter and I have already reduced the South Carolina deer population by two using our deadly weapons. In my entire life, including military service, I have never even fired a shot at another person. Your irrational fear keeps you from seeing my rational reason for owning guns.
11168523eeef07bf94.jpg

1116852403368032c8.jpg
 
Belz... said:
People seem even bolder when they have guns. The assailants would have had guns, and their purpose was ethnic cleansing fueled by hatred. I don't see how guns could've helped, so I'm still waiting for your clarification.
Click to expand...
There's far more of a mutually assured destruction factor when both sides have guns. A 70 year old man or a woman armed with a gun can mount a much more effective defense against a similarly armed 20 year old male than if all parties have melee weapons.

In pre-firearm days people were far more likely to die a violent death than they were once firearms came into common use.
 
Mudcat said:
Yeah I know, it is quite jaw dropping that gun owners defend their little hobby when it costs more lives in the United States in one year than in an active war zone in ten years. But I'm sure you won't let that stop you fantasizing playing the hero of the day, which accounts for less than a fraction of those lives lost.

Also, meant thousands, not millions.
Click to expand...
Which war zone are you talking about? Are you including all deaths, or cherry picking just a select group of people within it? How does it translate to rate?

I mean, you wouldn't be using misleading statistics, would you? :rolleyes:

Mudcat said:
The closest I could get was the thirteen million Occupy Wall-street (the biggest recent demonstration) cost cities, which comes nowhere near the amount of damage done by gun violence. But don't let that stop you from fantasizing about shooting an intruder in your home, which is statistically less likely than you accidentally shooting your own son.
Click to expand...
13 million what? The NATO summit alone cost Chicago $15 million just in police overtime. And you're claiming nationwide costs of just "13 million"? :rolleyes:

Mudcat said:
This is more likely the fault of other social problems. Lack of adequate education and health care (both physical and mental) combined with the ill-advised war on drugs.
Click to expand...
Well while we're waiting for all the social ills to be cured I'll keep my options open thank you.

Mudcat said:
I'm sorry, but your individual 'right' to keep and bear arms does not out weigh the right of the many to safety, security, and prosperity.
Click to expand...
How are my guns affecting anyone else's safety, security, or prosperity? They certainly help the prosperity of those who sell me guns, ammunition, reloading supplies, cleaning equipment/supplies, and targets.

Mudcat said:
I guess it could be considered humerus. If you consider 400 million uncontrolled firearms, thousands of deaths, and billions of dollars of damages in the country humerus that is.
Click to expand...
Evidence for the hilited part?

And what is your source for the costs? What are the benefits, you seem to have forgotten to include those for some reason.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
That's not what the Second Amendment says, though. It says it's a right...in order to maintain a well regulated militia. I have not seen a lot of miltias lately. In fact, I would not be surprised if the majority of gun owners didn't even belong to one!
Click to expand...
So "the people" aren't "the people" in the Constitution? They accidentally wrote "the people" when they really meant "the militia"? :rolleyes:

And you might want to consult your dictionary on the definition of "militia", particularly at that time.
 
3point14 said:
Ah, so you're saying that a tactic that has been proven to work when applied against an entrenched and unwanted leadership doesn't actually work?
Click to expand...
It really depends on whether that entrenched and unwanted leadership is more like the 20th Century UK or Stalin-era Russia.

Do you disagree?
 
RenaissanceBiker said:
This year my daughter and I have already reduced the South Carolina deer population by two using our deadly weapons.
Click to expand...

Is that a good thing? One of my first google hits for South Carolina deer problems says:

"Since 2002, the SC deer population has declined by more than 30%. While our deer population is still healthy, we do not want to see it decline further. "
(they talk about the coyote issue).

Then there's: South Carolina May Instate Deer Limits Due To Decreasing Population
 
Last edited:
Several posters in this thread have given the impression that Americans sit by the front door with a loaded shotgun, just waiting/hoping/fearing for some jackoff to burst through the door with the intent to kill your family.

That just isn't at all true (though, I'm sure their are stray cases of just that). Truth is, Americans go about their lives and not a thought is given to such a fear.

In my case, I grew up with a father and uncles who were police officers and two grandfathers who were in WWII, so guns were always around. My father taught me to give every firearm respect and treat each as if they were loaded. They weren't toys. He taught me how to use them as what they are...TOOLS. They are for hunting, targets, and (if need be) self-defense. That self-defense could be from animals, but also people that are looking to harm me or my family. We've always talked about how unlikely it would be to have to use a firearm in the latter...but one thing that always stuck with me from both family and my time in Boy Scouts...is to "be prepared".

So I get pretty damn frustrated to hear people on this forum call gun owners cowboys and/or sociopaths. I don't walk the streets shopping for trouble. No one I know does. Of all my friends, family, and acquaintances, I'm aware of exactly one person that had to ever pull a firearm in self defense...that was during a car-jacking attempt. No shots were fired, and the would-be thief ran off.

I have no fear that some cracked-out dirtbag is going to come into my home...but, should that ever happen, I'm prepared.

Guns aren't the problem in this country, it's the culture. It's a culture created by the complete impotency of it's law enforcement. If this country really wanted to change for the better, they would stop blaming the 99.9% of legal, law-abiding gun owners for it's problems.
 
GlennB said:
Is that a good thing?
Click to expand...
It's good for my freezer. I don't buy steaks or hamburger. My daughter wanted part of hers made into breakfast sausage. We now have 50 pounds of it.

GlennB said:
One of my first google hits for South Carolina deer problems says:

"Since 2002, the SC deer population has declined by more than 30%. While our deer population is still healthy, we do not want to see it decline further. "
(they talk about the coyote issue).

Then there's: South Carolina May Instate Deer Limits Due To Decreasing Population
Click to expand...
That article is from 2010 and inaccurate. We already have limits on how many deer you can take. Try looking here:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/regs/pdf/hunting.pdf#page=3
Half of my hunt club is in Game Zone 2 and half is in Game Zone 4. My hunting license fees go to pay for programs that protect wildlife. Modern hunters are really into protecting the environment and wildlife habitats.
 
GlennB said:
Is that a good thing? One of my first google hits for South Carolina deer problems says:

"Since 2002, the SC deer population has declined by more than 30%. While our deer population is still healthy, we do not want to see it decline further. "
(they talk about the coyote issue).

Then there's: South Carolina May Instate Deer Limits Due To Decreasing Population
Click to expand...
No state has a shortage of deer. There are more deer in the USA today than there were prior to European colonization due to removal of natural predators (particularly wolves and cougars) and agriculture opening up more habitat for them.
 
arthwollipot said:
I admit, I have been avoiding this thread that I started over the weekend, largely because it has gone pretty much exactly how I thought it probably would. I've caught up now. I'm aware that I've been asked a number of direct questions, particularly early on in the thread, and I apologise that I won't be answering them. Suffice to say that your arguments do not convince me, and I remain firmly opposed to the private ownership of guns except (reluctantly) in the case of sport and subsistence hunting.

The main argument that has been raised for the existence of the second amendment is historical - that it was required then for whatever reason (King, slaves, whatever) and therefore it still has validity now. I absolutely deny that argument. There is no reason whatsoever to maintain this status quo when the world has moved on. There is no king coming to try and tax you any more. You kicked him out with your guns. Good for you. That was two hundred years ago. Put your guns down and go play with the big kids.

The second argument has been raised is that of self-defence. I absolutely deny that a gun is a necessary tool for self-defence, particularly in a civilised society where there isn't rampant gun ownership. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, and thus, alas, most likely unbreakable. That's a real shame, and I am very sorry that Americans are forced to live like that.

I can see no rational reason for citizens of a civilised country to consider ownership of deadly weapons a "right".
Click to expand...
So, just trolling then. Gotcha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom