Lax gun laws prove deadly in the U.S.

[Akubra]

Here you are Colpy, my comments on those quotes of yours:-

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
-- Thomas Jefferson

You wrote "here is what the people responsible for writing and presenting it had to say" yet this example appears to be a quote of TJ quoting someone esle's book which was about crimes and punishment and nothing to do with any militia, so out of context. Nice try though.

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46
- James Madison

That is a nice quote as it reinforces what I wrote. Countries of the time, including the British Empire of which America was part of, frequently went to great lengths to ensure the local military contingents were comprised of people from other areas, which was what the 2nd Amendment was all about preventing.

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29
- Alexander Hamilton

This is another quote that supports my contention.

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

I dont know the context of this and unable to comment.

Once again proving you have no idea what you are talking about.

Personal comments such as this do not reinforce your argument.

I actually have some education on the subject, and understand the requirements for something to be accepted as historically valid, having worked for a time as a history researcher at the local university.

I have met a number of Talebs and they too spend a lot of their lives studying their religion so your experience does not prove much to me at all.

You don't have a clue.

I will ignore that one too.

What they say is clear.

All religous teachings are clear, according to those who promote them.

And no amount of idiotic rationalizations, omissions, or outright lies on the part of the enemies of that liberty will change that fact.

Careful, you are beginning to sound like an outraged religous nutter.

 

[Colpy]

Here you are Colpy, my comments on those quotes of yours:-


You wrote "here is what the people responsible for writing and presenting it had to say" yet this example appears to be a quote of TJ quoting someone esle's book which was about crimes and punishment and nothing to do with any militia, so out of context. Nice try though.



That is a nice quote as it reinforces what I wrote. Countries of the time, including the British Empire of which America was part of, frequently went to great lengths to ensure the local military contingents were comprised of people from other areas, which was what the 2nd Amendment was all about preventing.




This is another quote that supports my contention.



I dont know the context of this and unable to comment.


Personal comments such as this do not reinforce your argument.



I have met a number of Talebs and they too spend a lot of their lives studying their religion so your experience does not prove much to me at all.

I will ignore that one too.

All religous teachings are clear, according to those who promote them.


Careful, you are beginning to sound like an outraged religous nutter.

Which leave one gobsmacked and with simply one question: Can you read???????

Thomas Jefferson obviously quotes Beccaria because he approves. Deal with this quote from "TJ":

all power is inherent in the people; that they may
exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think
themselves competent, .......... that it is their right
and duty to be at all times armed;

Twist THAT!

As for the other quotes, I suggest you read them again............

Preferably after you take courses in History, and Reading Comprehension.

 

[ironsides]

The right to possess a weapon may be a right but laws on how and when you use them are all left up to individual states. If using a document such as Constitution and the second amendment then the laws that give rights to the states that supersede anything federal should be upheld at the same time

You are partially right. No laws States impose can supersede or contradict a Federal Law. States can however set up their own protocols for obtaining a firearms permit and what that permit allows you to do. For example: Hunting only, Home protection and target shooting only, when working while carrying large sums of money. etc. Then there is a full carry permit which means just that, you can carry any place you go with few exceptions (bars and Federal and government building.)

That is a phrase and is not able to stand alone without considering the rest of the sentence.

What the 2nd Amendment really means is:-

"We need an army and anyone will be able to join".

Of course it only means something different now because the American version of English has been warped to give the desired modern meaning.

To "bear arms" does not mean to carry a gun around, to bear arms means to be part of a military force, for example to "bear arms for his country".

It was the practice in British Empire days to prevent locals of colonies and occupied countries joining the British Army or if they did they were in units far from their homes this was to ensure that the army's capacity to exert force on the locals was not compromised. Hence the right to bear arms meant a right to join the milita.

There is also the matter of the 'well regulated milita', according to modern American usage 'regulated' at the time of writing the 2 Amendment meant 'well supplied', which is rather curious as that is not the meaning of regulated as used at the time of the Romans which incidently is the same meaning as it has now.

The modern interpretation, and the selection of the single phrase, is a deliberate distortion of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

So Colpy which bit of that do you not understand?

Are you seriously trying to tell us what the English language meant back in the 1700's? Geez you guys lost, we get to write what we interoperate it to be, and your exactly right.


We did it back then so local militias could organize and defend their homes from British and their Indian allies. We had no need to raise armies like the British did to fight in other places, thus the meaning for us changed and has been a corner stone of our rights ever since.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Sensationalism in reporting certainly isn't exclusive to American media. The Star being leftist enough, Olivia Ward needn't look too far to quote sympathetic gun abolitionists. As Colpy indicates, she looks no further than that. Her, (and other such reporters') laziness in research always leads to Wendy Cukier, the Canadian expert in the embellishment and sensationalizing of statistics. (Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth).

Ms. Ward quotes 30,000 deaths/year from gunshot wounds suffered by 98,000 who are shot. The Journal of American Medical Association in 2000 quotes 225,000 deaths per year by misadventure in hospitals. If we like to quote raw statistics without dissemination, as firearm abolitionists do, it would appear that hospitals are the #3 cause of death in the United States and should be banned, with nearly 30,000 people dying in hospitals from errors and unnecessary surgery alone, and another 80,000 dying from infections contracted in hospitals. Do we close hospitals or ban doctors? Of course not, the number of lives saved can be quantified and there is a managed risk. The number of lives saved by firearms cannot be quantified because there is no system in place to record or report such statistics.

Ms. Ward cannot even get her terminology right, although it is common with others ignorant of which they speak, it shows willful ignorance when it comes to reporting. A clip’s only purpose in life is to hold ammunition to facilitate timely loading of a magazine, and they are expendable. While there may be other exceptions, the only firearm I know of which you can attach a clip to is an M1 Garand, and it too is expelled when the mag is empty. It may sound like pure semantics but the difference between a clip and a magazine is like oil and water. A mag is or becomes an integral part of a firearm; a clip is not and does not. A loaded detachable mag is far heavier than a loaded clip, and loading a magazine from a clip can be done in half the time as changing mags, which, on the battle field can mean the difference between winning or losing.

What difference does this make? Well, Arizona is a permissive open carry state. Firearms there are not hidden away and only brought out during pagan rituals or in darkened back rooms, people there are familiar with them. A citizen, a woman yet, had the wherewithal to attack the assailant while he was reloading and grab the magazine or otherwise stall him giving enough time for others to join her in subduing him. Contrast that with our sheepish country and its citizens with their inherent fear of that which they don't undertand who allowed a nutter to walk into a college in Montreal with a hunting rifle, order all the men out of the rooms, and go on a shooting rampage against the women unabated.

I disagree, if this guy only had hunting rifles he never would have been able to kill and injure that many people.

You must have forgotten about Montreal. That was a Ruger Mini14, a .223 Remington caliber hunting rifle, yes hunting rifle. Though maybe only still legal for deer in Manitoba, they are very popular for predator and pest control.

 

[Colpy]

Sensationalism in reporting certainly isn't exclusive to American media. The Star being leftist enough, Olivia Ward needn't look too far to quote sympathetic gun abolitionists. As Colpy indicates, she looks no further than that. Her, (and other such reporters') laziness in research always leads to Wendy Cukier, the Canadian expert in the embellishment and sensationalizing of statistics. (Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth).

Ms. Ward quotes 30,000 deaths/year from gunshot wounds suffered by 98,000 who are shot. The Journal of American Medical Association in 2000 quotes 225,000 deaths per year by misadventure in hospitals. If we like to quote raw statistics without dissemination, as firearm abolitionists do, it would appear that hospitals are the #3 cause of death in the United States and should be banned, with nearly 30,000 people dying in hospitals from errors and unnecessary surgery alone, and another 80,000 dying from infections contracted in hospitals. Do we close hospitals or ban doctors? Of course not, the number of lives saved can be quantified and there is a managed risk. The number of lives saved by firearms cannot be quantified because there is no system in place to record or report such statistics.

Ms. Ward cannot even get her terminology right, although it is common with others ignorant of which they speak, it shows willful ignorance when it comes to reporting. A clip’s only purpose in life is to hold ammunition to facilitate timely loading of a magazine, and they are expendable. While there may be other exceptions, the only firearm I know of which you can attach a clip to is an M1 Garand, and it too is expelled when the mag is empty. It may sound like pure semantics but the difference between a clip and a magazine is like oil and water. A mag is or becomes an integral part of a firearm; a clip is not and does not. A loaded detachable mag is far heavier than a loaded clip, and loading a magazine from a clip can be done in half the time as changing mags, which, on the battle field can mean the difference between winning or losing.

What difference does this make? Well, Arizona is a permissive open carry state. Firearms there are not hidden away and only brought out during pagan rituals or in darkened back rooms, people there are familiar with them. A citizen, a woman yet, had the wherewithal to attack the assailant while he was reloading and grab the magazine or otherwise stall him giving enough time for others to join her in subduing him. Contrast that with our sheepish country and its citizens with their inherent fear of that which they don't undertand who allowed a nutter to walk into a college in Montreal with a hunting rifle, order all the men out of the rooms, and go on a shooting rampage against the women unabated.




You must have forgotten about Montreal. That was a Ruger Mini14, a .223 Remington caliber hunting rifle, yes hunting rifle. Though maybe only still legal for deer in Manitoba, they are very popular for predator and pest control.

Good post!

The Mini is legal for deer in New Brunswick as well. i wouldn't use it for that, as I have other choices.....but I did carry a Mini for years as a coyote rifle.

 

[Akubra]

Which leave one gobsmacked and with simply one question: Can you read???????

Thomas Jefferson obviously quotes Beccaria because he approves. Deal with this quote from "TJ":

The quote from Beccaria is not part of the 2nd Amendment and TJ was entitled to his opinions thought it is significant that he did not get to include them in the 2nd Amendment.

As for the other quotes, I suggest you read them again............

I have already read them a few times.

Preferably after you take courses in History, and Reading Comprehension.

I will ignore that.


I am sorry to say that you have fallen into the clutches of a cult which has addled you thinking until you firmly believe that
"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" really means "The right of the People to keep and bear arms[,] shall not be infringed".

So why do you think they wasted all those extra words? My contention is they wrote what they did because they were concerned that a military force was required for the security of the state.

I also find it significant that the bit about the military force and the security of the state frequently, maybe almost always, glossed over by those who try to distort it to their own beliefs.

 

[taxslave]

In the end of all this arguing it still boils down to one simple sentence: When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Nothing more need be said.

 

[Colpy]

The quote from Beccaria is not part of the 2nd Amendment and TJ was entitled to his opinions thought it is significant that he did not get to include them in the 2nd Amendment.





I have already read them a few times.



I will ignore that.


I am sorry to say that you have fallen into the clutches of a cult which has addled you thinking until you firmly believe that
"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" really means "The right of the People to keep and bear arms[,] shall not be infringed".

So why do you think they wasted all those extra words? My contention is they wrote what they did because they were concerned that a military force was required for the security of the state.

English Comprehension.

Example: "Because Mommy needed grocery items, Johnny went to the store"
The first part of the sentence "Because Mommy needed grocery items" explains the need for Johnny to go to the store (to get groceries)....however, it in no way modifies, changes, or has any effect whatsoever on the second, declarative part of the sentence "Johnny went to the store"

Example: "A well regulated militia, being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The first part of the sentence explains the need for the right to keep and bear arms (so a militia, comprised of all the people, is ready to defend liberty).......however, it in no way modifies the second, declarative part of the sentence "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed."

History.

The first battle of the American Revolution was fought when British troops marched off into the countryside to seize weapons from the people. This, and subsequent removals of arms from the colonials led to much protest that they were being denied their ancient right to keep and bear arms.......

The right to keep and bear arms is ancient, long pre-dating the American constitution, and does not depend on that document for its existence. It is clearly recognized by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and is a part of our heriditary rights, as well as those of the USA.

The founders of the nation and those who wrote the US Bill of Rights clearly meant it to be an individual right so that "the People" could never be coerced or undermined in a free state..

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution after it was demanded as a condition of ratification by the delegates to the constitutional conference.....who felt that the rights OF THE PEOPLE (not the state) needed to be carefully laid out......

 

[DaSleeper]

It's a good thing that the US supreme court can read better or Akruba must think they don't know how to read
Just google "McDonald v. Chicago" and read the decision itself in PDF format, the third item on the list and not the wiki version.

 

[Akubra]

English Comprehension.

Example: "Because Mommy needed grocery items, Johnny went to the store"
The first part of the sentence "Because Mommy needed grocery items" explains the need for Johnny to go to the store (to get groceries)....however, it in no way modifies, changes, or has any effect whatsoever on the second, declarative part of the sentence "Johnny went to the store"

"Because Mommy needed grocery items, Johnny went to the store" is not the same as "Because he fancied the grocer's daughter, Johnny went to the store".

 

[ironsides]

"Because Mommy needed grocery items, Johnny went to the store" is not the same as "Because he fancied the grocer's daughter, Johnny went to the store".

 

[Machjo]

If Johnny wants to buy a gun with his own money, that's none of my business. If Johnny wants to vote in a government that will spend more pubic money towards guns, that very much is my business.

So Johnny, go out and buy your own gun, but leave my tax dollars alone.

 

[ironsides]

The Supreme Court can INTERPRET the Constitution, but can't change it. A lot of people would say there's not much difference between those, since interpretation that has the force of law isn't much different than a new amendment.

The only way to actually CHANGE it is via a constitutional amendment. Congress or the states can initiate that, and the amendment has to be ratified by a fixed number of states before it takes effect. We've got 27 amendments, the most recent as of 1992.

 

[Colpy]

"Because Mommy needed grocery items, Johnny went to the store" is not the same as "Because he fancied the grocer's daughter, Johnny went to the store".

For the purpose of teaching you basic English Comprehension, they are exactly the same: it doesn't matter whether Johnny went to the store top get Mommy groceries, or to play slap and tickle with the grocer's daughter, NEITHER phrase at all modifies the declarative phrase "Johnny went to the store"

The same as the initial phrase in the Second Amendment matters little......it in no way modifies the declarative phrase "The right of the People to keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed."

But, just the same, this might interest you:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
​

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
​

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
​

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
​

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
​

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
​

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

 

[Akubra]

The same as the initial phrase in the Second Amendment matters little......it in no way modifies the declarative phrase "The right of the People to keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed."

Oh, I must have missed where you answered my question and explained why they didnt just write "The right of the People to keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed." instead of wasting ink and goose feathers on all those other words.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

A militia that is proper working order is a world of different from every man and his dog carrying a gun.

Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it....

It would take all the skills of a dedicated interpreter of the sacred texts to come to that conclusion.

 

[Kreskin]

If it is taken literally as the government having no ability to infringe on gun ownership then why is anyone criticizing the gun shop for selling the glock to Loughner. Wouldn't a denial of sale infringe on his second amendment right?

 

[Praxius]

As like always in the past, the exact same trend is happening now as like what happened in the past when some big shooting or mass shooting occurred.

People arer shocked and appalled, they can't believe something like this occurred..... they don't understand how someone like the attacker could easily get a gun, have all kinds of signs that they're a danger to society, yet nothing is done and they go ahead with their plans.

Then the gun debate pops up on the radar for like a day, and then it's shot back down (no pun intended) by people saying "This isn't the time for politics or debating laws, it's time to concentrate on those who lost their lives and mourn over what happened"

So people do and then the gun debate is dropped and forgotten about..... until the next mass shooting, it starts all over again..... someone mentions opening up the gun laws and debate again, and then they're shot down and told that it's not the time to discuss such things and it's time to focus on those who lost their lives, etc. etc.......

and repeat until crust is a golden brown.

And people down there keep wondering why these things keep on happening...... probably because nothing is ever done to change the situation.

And I'm not directly talking about changing the gun laws, or restricting their rights to firearms, or increasing security, or increasing background checks, or raising more red flags over someone before they do something, or giving more people more firearms to protect themselves.....

..... I mean nothing is ever done and nothing changes, period.

So why is any of this a surprise?

In fact, why do people continue to bring up these debates and continually bringing up the statistics and arguing for or against firearms in the US, when nothing ever changes, nothing is ever done and nothing will ever be done about any of it?

Wait until the next mass shooting and follow the trends in the media and the trends from politicians and you see this exact same pattern repeat all over again:

• We need to do something about the gun laws
• This isn't the time for such a debate, it's time to mourn those who lost their lives
• People mourn the dead, nothing else is done
• Another shooting occurs.....

and repeat

 

[ironsides]

If it is taken literally as the government having no ability to infringe on gun ownership then why is anyone criticizing the gun shop for selling the glock to Loughner. Wouldn't a denial of sale infringe on his second amendment right?

He never should have been cleared thru the investigation, he failed a psychological as well as a drug test before buying that gun, so he was in the system. Looks like the clerk or salesmen in the store did not do his job. That happens sometimes.

 

[CDNBear]

You must have forgotten about Montreal. That was a Ruger Mini14, a .223 Remington caliber hunting rifle, yes hunting rifle. Though maybe only still legal for deer in Manitoba, they are very popular for predator and pest control.

The Mini is legal for deer in New Brunswick as well. i wouldn't use it for that, as I have other choices.....but I did carry a Mini for years as a coyote rifle.

I've preferred a Parker Hale M82, in the past, but I'm in the market for something lighter, with the same range and flat trajectory.

Any suggestions.

It's a good thing that the US supreme court can read better or Akruba must think they don't know how to read
Just google "McDonald v. Chicago" and read the decision itself in PDF format, the third item on the list and not the wiki version.

That's the problem with living in wikiality, reality always trumps it.

If it is taken literally as the government having no ability to infringe on gun ownership then why is anyone criticizing the gun shop for selling the glock to Loughner. Wouldn't a denial of sale infringe on his second amendment right?

No sane people are blaming anybody but Lougner.

As like always in the past, the exact same trend is happening now as like what happened in the past when some big shooting or mass shooting occurred.

People arer shocked and appalled, they can't believe something like this occurred..... they don't understand how someone like the attacker could easily get a gun, have all kinds of signs that they're a danger to society, yet nothing is done and they go ahead with their plans.

I'm not shocked that Loughner was capable of committing his crime. I'm shocked that people are trying to blame everyone else but.

If people were honest, they'd actually have to acknowledge their own faulty logic, ie; If peoples mental health records weren't considered confidential, things like this could be avoided.

 

[Unforgiven]

It's a good thing that the US supreme court can read better or Akruba must think they don't know how to read
Just google "McDonald v. Chicago" and read the decision itself in PDF format, the third item on the list and not the wiki version.

I suppose when the US Supreme Court is stacked with anti-gun judges and interpret the 2nd amendment another way, there will be the triple E speech of lies trotted out again.

I would like to see the gun nuts answer the questions on how to stop people from killing others with a gun.

If the US can prevent Iraq from getting nukes, not because they have done something, but because they may do something, then why can't the government of the US prevent an American from having a gun, not because they have done something, but because they may do something?