The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[The Norseman]

It was more a refutation of the title "More guns, less crime". Sorry I should have stated that and been clearer.

Ah, okay, that's cool. As I said, the facts and numbers and his methodologies are all there, it's just his conclusions I don't think are accurate.

 

[DavidJames]

Sure, just as soon as you provide the evidence for all of the statements you've made regarding guns in this thread, k?

Are you freaking kidding me. You made claims about what people said in this freaking thread and you don't / won't have the decency to scroll back and copy the quotes you claimed. Know why? Because you made it up. You lied, you said something that you can't support. I called you on it and you ran away and are now trying to save face.

Good luck with that chuckles.

 

[angrysoba]

I said violent deaths in general, not just from crime. And I explained why.

Have you been able to figure out a formula yet for predicting homicide rates based on guns per capita? Why or why not?

Yet? What do you mean "yet"? You haven't asked me yet.

But anyway, a request for such a sociological theory is ridiculous, particularly if you think the world works as smoothly as being able to produce a formula similar to a biochemical process such as smoking and lung cancer. I might as well ask you to produce a formula for calculating the speed of cancer on similar lines to the physical speed of light.

That's kind of the whole point. In fact Rwanda is so far from developed firearms are quite rare, and yet it's the scene of the worst genocide in recent times.

Rare? While a lot of machetes were used in the Rwandan genocide, AK-47s and grenades were also used and the genocide was government-initiated.

The killing was well organized by the government.[2] When it started, the Rwandan militia numbered around 30,000, or one militia member for every ten families. It was organized nationwide, with representatives in every neighborhood. Some militia members were able to acquire AK-47 assault rifles by completing requisition forms. Other weapons, such as grenades, required no paperwork and were widely distributed by the government. Many members of the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi were armed only with machetes.

And have a lower death toll after years of conflict with firearms than Rwanda experienced in just a few months with nothing more than machetes.

This is false. The Congo Civil War has killed millions and doubly false of you to say that Rwandan militia had "nothing more than machetes". Some groups were armed only with machetes, but others were armed with guns as well.

 

[angrysoba]

By 'detached' do you mean 'neutral'? Because you are anything but neutral in this "debate".

Oh really? What's my position then? I've already stated it so that anyone who can read and chooses to do so can do so. But instead it gets ignored. Oh poor me. Poor misunderstood me.

 

[angrysoba]

Somalia?????? BWAHAHAHAHAH!!! WTF? That's most likely the WORST example you could come up with.....

Yeah, Bwaahahahahahahahahahahaha WTF Like OMFG! ROTFLMAO!!!! Bwahaahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahhaaaaaaa! AaaaaahhahhahahhahBwahhaahahaweeahhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! WTF Man Like WTTTTTTTDFFFFFFFF!!!!! Hooooo Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

 

[triforcharity]

Yeah, Bwaahahahahahahahahahahaha WTF Like OMFG! ROTFLMAO!!!! Bwahaahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahhaaaaaaa! AaaaaahhahhahahhahBwahhaahahaweeahhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! WTF Man Like WTTTTTTTDFFFFFFFF!!!!! Hooooo Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Yes, you used Somalia, a lawless, government free country as some kind of good example of gun control? Surely you jest. You realize that Somalia is a hotbed for pirates?

So that I'm not accused of not backing up my claims, here's two different links. http://endgenocide.org/conflict-areas/somalia/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_Somalia

 

[angrysoba]

Purely an innocent oversight I'm sure, and has nothing to so with cherry picking stats to "prove" an otherwise unsupportable hypothesis.

This level of dishonesty is quite objectionable. I did post figures for Switzerland, so your claim that I am cherry-picking is false.

What is consistently demonstrated with figures for countries in the developed world is that those with "gun friendly" legislation have higher GRHs. This is simply a fact.

Anyway, as I said, if you want to make a case for the right to bear arms then you would be better off making one on the basis of civil liberties rather than on such contingent facts as gun deaths.

The same could be said for, say, the legalization of drugs. It is pretty obvious that with drug legalization there will be more use of drugs and probably more drugs deaths. We certainly know that it happens for alcohol. However, the fact that people will take more drugs and die in greater numbers does not mean that there is no civil liberties issue.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes, you used Somalia, a lawless, government free country as some kind of good example of gun control?

Eh? No I did not. How weird that you should think so.

 

[triforcharity]

So why would you think holding them up as some kind of model for gun control wouldn't garner you at least some mocking.

 

[angrysoba]

So why would you think holding them up as some kind of model for gun control wouldn't garner you at least some mocking.

I didn't. I said the opposite.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Ok, why is America considered the most violent country in the world, even though its murder rate is under half that of Russia's?

 

[angrysoba]

I was pointing out that your were cherry-picking by avoiding whatever country didn't fit your pretty little list. I don't compare the USA to any other country, that's the AG's angle, not mine.

My "pretty little list" (do you really think it is pretty? Awwww! Thank you!) was of some randomly selected developed countries with gun controls.

For some bizarre reason you seem to think I should have included non-developed countries such as Mexico and Brazil on the list as well as countries with few gun controls ("gun friendly" countries) such as Switzerland. I have posted a few charts now, and explained the purpose of each one. I think you are the one cherry-picking by ignoring the stats that you demanded I produce so that you can continue to claim, falsely, that I haven't posted those stats. Wow! The dishonesty around here is amazing.

Jeezus, you can't stop yourself, can you? Why are you comparing tiny little countries to the USA?

What? Germany, the UK and Australia are "tiny little countries"? I have explained the relevance of the comparison - they are developed countries, and each of them have populations which are easily comparable to any of the states that you have put in your charts. I mean how many people live in New Hampshire or Idaho? Now look up the populations of Germany and the UK. By the sounds of things you will be incredibly surprised.

Really? That's your question? And you thought I was the one grasping at straws?

Yes, I think you are.

Dunno. Don't care. This is a thread about the 2A and an American's right to bear arms.

Yes. And you are posting stats about gun crime. Why not just state the philosophical and juridical basis for the right to bear arms? Like I have repeatedly said now, that would be my position, and to Hell with the stats. But while you keep posting the stats as if they prove that the right to bear arms rests on the benefits to society then I think I have a right to challenge you on those stats. I think they do not prove the case you are trying to make.

By that logic, all the states with strict gun laws would have the lower homicide rates...and we all know that's not true. Sorry.

No. Not at all. You need to brush up on your understanding of elementary logic as well as your geography, if you really think that.

That's not at all what I said. I'm saying to actually enforce the laws that are in place.

Enforce which laws? The gun laws, for example? I thought you wanted them abolished? After all you and WildCat have both suggested that gun crime goes down when guns are more freely available. So, why not try to sort out the gang problems in "gun unfriendly" areas by distributing guns to everyone. According to a bit of hokey folky wisdom Sam Colt will make everyone equal and gun crime will dry up.

I am stating, in very clear terms, that the government, at every level, must focus it's attention to the gang/drug/poverty problems we have in the inner-cities around the country and actually prosecute and jail those who commit violent crimes.

What exactly are those boobs doing right now then?

 

[angrysoba]

Ok, why is America considered the most violent country in the world, even though its murder rate is under half that of Russia's?

Why is strawberry blancmange considered the scariest thing in the world when there are big hairy spiders?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Why is strawberry blancmange considered the scariest thing in the world when there are big hairy spiders?

Some idiots who want to create a moral panic to be used to inflate their own egos (lionking goes on about how the US's problems make it "uncivilised", which he never seems to define for some strange reason.)

 

[triforcharity]

I didn't. I said the opposite.

My apologies. I read your post to say that they get along just fine without shooting. My bad. I'm really sorry about that. I'll take the crow, lightly blackened, with a side of asparagus.

 

[angrysoba]

Some idiots who want to create a moral panic to be used to inflate their own egos (lionking goes on about how the US's problems make it "uncivilised", which he never seems to define for some strange reason.)

Okay, who has claimed that the US is "the most violent country in the world" (your words)?

Besides, just a hint here. If you start comparing the violent crime rate of the USA with that of Russia (or Mexico or Brazil) then it is such a "damning with faint praise" thing to do that some might suspect you of parody.

For example, in this joke "No, it's great to be in Slough, really it is... I just spent a year in Beirut!" Slough is the butt of the joke because it is believed that almost anywhere can be favourably compared to Beirut.

Just a little tip there.

 

[angrysoba]

My apologies. I read your post to say that they get along just fine without shooting. My bad. I'm really sorry about that. I'll take the crow, lightly blackened, with a side of asparagus.

No problem, sir! I'll forgive you for shooting from the hip this time.

 

[triforcharity]

No problem, sir! I'll forgive you for shooting from the hip this time.

Thanks. Now you understand why I was so flabberghasted! I was just like....seriously?? Somalia? The pirate place? WTF? Cheers sir, and yes, I'll try to keep my booger picker out of the bang switch so early.....

 

[The Norseman]

Oh really? What's my position then? I've already stated it so that anyone who can read and chooses to do so can do so. But instead it gets ignored. Oh poor me. Poor misunderstood me.

In this thread, you have only posted anti-gun type data and nothing for the support of private ownership of guns. I don't think I'm drawing a hasty conclusion when you seem to be showing such bias. At least, that's not my definition of neutral.

Yes. And you are posting stats about gun crime. Why not just state the philosophical and juridical basis for the right to bear arms? Like I have repeatedly said now, that would be my position, and to Hell with the stats.

The philosophical and judicial basis for the right to bear arms has been repeatedly addressed in this thread. Can't blame others if you choose to respond to posts which do not discuss your criteria.

 

[angrysoba]

In this thread, you have only posted anti-gun type data and nothing for the support of private ownership of guns. I don't think I'm drawing a hasty conclusion when you seem to be showing such bias. At least, that's not my definition of neutral..

Oh really? Then what did I write here then?

Okay. I haven't seen any bigotry. Which is not to say that it isn't there, however.

As for me personally, I don't have a problem with the US having the gun culture that it does. Besides, as I said before, the right to bear arms is in fact an English innovation and one that was drawn on by the Founding Fathers of the US and those who drew up state consitutions such as the one in Pennsylvania. From what I can see the intent absolutely was to allow those who were considered citizens to have their private arms and it was not at all restricted to militias.

However, I have two caveats to my point.

One of those is that I don't see the right to bear arms as anywhere near on a par with the right to vote or freedom of speech. I certainly hope that people in the US do not see it that way as I would hate to see some drummed up military campaign to bomb the UK into freedom.

The second one is that it should of course be perfectly acceptable to deplore the US right to bear arms without it having to be branded as anti-American bigotry. After all, there are plenty of Americans who themselves are against the right to bear arms.

Of course, that post was in response to you and one that you replied to. Again, I can't understand the level of dishonesty that goes on around here.

The philosophical and judicial basis for the right to bear arms has been repeatedly addressed in this thread. Can't blame others if you choose to respond to posts which do not discuss your criteria.

I posted this on the very first bloody page of the thread:

This has surely come up in the past, but the US right to bear arms was not unique in history at all. In fact, the 1689 Bill of Rights in England following the Glorious Revolution set the template in many ways, including rather obvious similarities in language for the US Bill of Rights, and one of the enumerated rights was that people not have their right to arms infringed by Royalty.

There are other clear parallels with the later American document here, including an independent judiciary and the forbidding of "cruel and unusual" punishments, freedom of speech, freedom to petition government: