ThunderHorse
Verified Military
As far as PSDs...if you can pay for it, go ahead.
United States & Gun Control discussion.
- Thread starter Diamondback 2/2
- Start date
By which you mean "all animals are equal, but some animals are MORE equal". Well said.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
Obviously this conversation has entered a faulty logic loop. You are either twisting my words to your own purpose (likely), or you do not comprehend what was written (unlikely). No where in any of my posts did I say, or otherwise imply, that anyone without a gun is a victim OR that the state is not obligate to protect you. What I did say is that the state is not required to protect the individual, but instead is required to protect the public. Case law and examples were provided to you from reputable academic sources. The state cannot protect everyone all of the time.
It is the individual's choice on whether to exercise their right to be armed or not. Many are intelligent enough to know they are not prepared for that awesome responsibility. Though they do not begrudge others their rights. Before you twist that statement, every person that carries is not a cowboy cop wanting to shoot some urban folk.
Oh, and as I am beginning to suspect, +1 for trolling.
Last edited:
Ranger Psych, not attempting to be fact-free, dodge your questions, or fail to respond to facts just believe the way we interpret facts and sources is going to be so significantly different that the facts I cite and my interpretation is not going to satisfy what you’re looking for – just as many of your arguments have not convinced me.
If you look at the link on gun ownership and gun homicides provided in an earlier post you find the US has a homicide rate by firearm of 2.97 per 100k. The UK has one of 0.07, Germany 0.19, France 0.06 and so on through most first world countries. Here it is again: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
Even accounting for differences in population it’s still a much higher rate of gun homicides. Similarly, the homicide rates by country link: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5 show the US murder rate of 5 per 100k people is significantly higher than that of France (1), Germany (1), the United Kingdom (1) and most other developed countries.
Certainly the factors that go into crime, including homicide, are complex and there are a variety of factors impacting – not just gun laws. However, my point should still be acknowledgeable as within the realm of possible – that if private gun ownership is the means to secure personal safety then there are a number of places where gun restrictions have not impacted that personal safety negatively.
Here is an article comparing the US and UK on that point: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-24/u-k-gun-curbs-mean-more-violence-yet-fewer-deaths-than-in-u-s-.html
It argues the rates of violence are actually greater in the UK, but gun laws have reduced homicides significantly below that of the US.
The statistics I was able to find on the UK vs US with my cursory googling were from 2010 but indicated 12,996 murders in the US vs 638 for the UK. 8,775 of those in the US were by firearms while 58 of the UK’s were. Even accounting for population differences that’s very significant in terms of just straight up where are you more or less likely to get murdered, especially by a firearm. Links:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls - murders in US – 12,996 in 2010
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls - murders by firearms in US – 8,775 in 2010
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/homicides-firearm-offences-and-intimate-violence-2010-to-2011-supplementary-volume-2-to-crime-in-england-and-wales-2010-to-2011 - murders in UK – 638 in 2010
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/homicides-firearm-offences-and-intimate-violence-2010-to-2011-supplementary-volume-2-to-crime-in-england-and-wales-2010-to-2011 - murders by firearm in the UK – 58 in 2010
That’s awesome your wife was able to defend herself and her coworkers. Glad she is safe from the encounter.
My point on self-defense within the home was vs home invasion, robbery, or assault within normative criminal behavior. Understand if you are going to defend against a deliberate attack by preparing a fortified position you’re going to need a great deal of additional items. I’m not aware of that type of assault being a significant concern to most homeowners.
Here is a good list of books on the American Revolution. I think you’ll find the authors by-and-large credit the formation, organization, leadership, and logistics of the continental army with military victory – though certainly the militia played an important role. Private gun ownership, while it certainly a boon to the baseline skills of many recruits, was not the critical factor in throwing off a tyranny.
http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/2565.Best_Books_About_The_American_Revolution
Your first link on the civil rights movement and the role of firearms in my estimation is significantly off the mark in terms of the mainstream of scholarship. Here is a list of books I think a little more on the mark:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/08/25/215377849/the-books-that-bring-the-civil-rights-movement-to-life
The other links, to me, are equally unconvincing. The first details local political violence where the National Guard RESTORED order. The second sounds like a pretty horrific episode of racial violence against African Americans in the reconstruction South. Unless you’re imagining a revisionist history where the freedmen were armed and supplied sufficiently to defend themselves it seems like a terrible example.
The examples I’d point to of significant political change in the US and the advancement of rights where private gun ownership were not the deciding factor are:
The Revolutionary War
The Civil War
Universal Suffrage – both African Americans and Women respectively
Evolution of the labor movement – Unions
The Civil Rights Movement
With respect, there is no way you – or I for that matter – have any idea what is inevitable and what is not. You make a judgment based on your best analysis of past similar events and how you interpret current activity. But it is still a judgment – mine just happens to be different from yours.
For the last portion you’re making my point. If one doesn’t support your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and it is an interpretation just as mine is, then they don’t deserve support. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the anchor point for all other opinions. Freedom of religion, sure, but not for religions I don’t agree with like Islam; Freedom of assembly, great, but it’s got to be people I agree with assembling.
There is no way the 2nd amendment makes all the other rights possible. The reason I know that is there are dozens of countries where the rights to free expression, religion, assembly, unreasonable search and seizure, etc. exist without the right to bear arms.
Look, I’ve got it, you disagree 100% with everything I’m saying. That’s fine, what I’m expressing are my opinions informed by my own biases and interpretation of facts. There are many facts I’m unaware of that may change my views in the future. My beliefs don’t necessarily mean yours are wrong at all. I do not understand the vitriol with which you insist my opinions MUST be wrong and yours MUST be the correct and only interpretation of what are some pretty complex issues with a great diversity of opinion in this country and others. Believe me, nothing I’m saying or have said is meant to insult you or your beliefs.
Freefalling. I have kept up with the discussion for about 2/3rds of the entries but have not read the entire thread in detail. I have responded to the last few pages as I interpreted most of the comments to be directed at things I had posted. I definitely didn’t feel equipped to take on the rest of the 80 pages. Some might think I’m not equipped to take on the items I did comment on :).
Ke4gde. It was not my intention to twist your words nor am I attempting to be a troll on this thread. I’m happy to slip back into monitoring mode but didn’t want people to think I have no sources or facts and was attempting to ‘skirt the actual questions asked.’
If you look at the link on gun ownership and gun homicides provided in an earlier post you find the US has a homicide rate by firearm of 2.97 per 100k. The UK has one of 0.07, Germany 0.19, France 0.06 and so on through most first world countries. Here it is again: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
Even accounting for differences in population it’s still a much higher rate of gun homicides. Similarly, the homicide rates by country link: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5 show the US murder rate of 5 per 100k people is significantly higher than that of France (1), Germany (1), the United Kingdom (1) and most other developed countries.
Certainly the factors that go into crime, including homicide, are complex and there are a variety of factors impacting – not just gun laws. However, my point should still be acknowledgeable as within the realm of possible – that if private gun ownership is the means to secure personal safety then there are a number of places where gun restrictions have not impacted that personal safety negatively.
Here is an article comparing the US and UK on that point: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-24/u-k-gun-curbs-mean-more-violence-yet-fewer-deaths-than-in-u-s-.html
It argues the rates of violence are actually greater in the UK, but gun laws have reduced homicides significantly below that of the US.
The statistics I was able to find on the UK vs US with my cursory googling were from 2010 but indicated 12,996 murders in the US vs 638 for the UK. 8,775 of those in the US were by firearms while 58 of the UK’s were. Even accounting for population differences that’s very significant in terms of just straight up where are you more or less likely to get murdered, especially by a firearm. Links:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls - murders in US – 12,996 in 2010
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls - murders by firearms in US – 8,775 in 2010
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/homicides-firearm-offences-and-intimate-violence-2010-to-2011-supplementary-volume-2-to-crime-in-england-and-wales-2010-to-2011 - murders in UK – 638 in 2010
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/homicides-firearm-offences-and-intimate-violence-2010-to-2011-supplementary-volume-2-to-crime-in-england-and-wales-2010-to-2011 - murders by firearm in the UK – 58 in 2010
That’s awesome your wife was able to defend herself and her coworkers. Glad she is safe from the encounter.
My point on self-defense within the home was vs home invasion, robbery, or assault within normative criminal behavior. Understand if you are going to defend against a deliberate attack by preparing a fortified position you’re going to need a great deal of additional items. I’m not aware of that type of assault being a significant concern to most homeowners.
Here is a good list of books on the American Revolution. I think you’ll find the authors by-and-large credit the formation, organization, leadership, and logistics of the continental army with military victory – though certainly the militia played an important role. Private gun ownership, while it certainly a boon to the baseline skills of many recruits, was not the critical factor in throwing off a tyranny.
http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/2565.Best_Books_About_The_American_Revolution
Your first link on the civil rights movement and the role of firearms in my estimation is significantly off the mark in terms of the mainstream of scholarship. Here is a list of books I think a little more on the mark:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/08/25/215377849/the-books-that-bring-the-civil-rights-movement-to-life
The other links, to me, are equally unconvincing. The first details local political violence where the National Guard RESTORED order. The second sounds like a pretty horrific episode of racial violence against African Americans in the reconstruction South. Unless you’re imagining a revisionist history where the freedmen were armed and supplied sufficiently to defend themselves it seems like a terrible example.
The examples I’d point to of significant political change in the US and the advancement of rights where private gun ownership were not the deciding factor are:
The Revolutionary War
The Civil War
Universal Suffrage – both African Americans and Women respectively
Evolution of the labor movement – Unions
The Civil Rights Movement
With respect, there is no way you – or I for that matter – have any idea what is inevitable and what is not. You make a judgment based on your best analysis of past similar events and how you interpret current activity. But it is still a judgment – mine just happens to be different from yours.
For the last portion you’re making my point. If one doesn’t support your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and it is an interpretation just as mine is, then they don’t deserve support. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the anchor point for all other opinions. Freedom of religion, sure, but not for religions I don’t agree with like Islam; Freedom of assembly, great, but it’s got to be people I agree with assembling.
There is no way the 2nd amendment makes all the other rights possible. The reason I know that is there are dozens of countries where the rights to free expression, religion, assembly, unreasonable search and seizure, etc. exist without the right to bear arms.
Look, I’ve got it, you disagree 100% with everything I’m saying. That’s fine, what I’m expressing are my opinions informed by my own biases and interpretation of facts. There are many facts I’m unaware of that may change my views in the future. My beliefs don’t necessarily mean yours are wrong at all. I do not understand the vitriol with which you insist my opinions MUST be wrong and yours MUST be the correct and only interpretation of what are some pretty complex issues with a great diversity of opinion in this country and others. Believe me, nothing I’m saying or have said is meant to insult you or your beliefs.
Freefalling. I have kept up with the discussion for about 2/3rds of the entries but have not read the entire thread in detail. I have responded to the last few pages as I interpreted most of the comments to be directed at things I had posted. I definitely didn’t feel equipped to take on the rest of the 80 pages. Some might think I’m not equipped to take on the items I did comment on :).
Ke4gde. It was not my intention to twist your words nor am I attempting to be a troll on this thread. I’m happy to slip back into monitoring mode but didn’t want people to think I have no sources or facts and was attempting to ‘skirt the actual questions asked.’
This
IS
NOT
THE UK OR EUROPE
we have more people, we have more land mass, we have a different type of government. We have different laws. We report crimes differently.
If you have such high regard for how they run stuff, Have at it.
2012 statistics:
- 3,783 burglaries a day
- 135 Robberies a day
- 1.8 of those robberies resulted in murder
- 75% of those burglaries and 17% of those robberies occurred at home
- 3,038 forcible entrys a day
That's all well and good, but, umm, how does your view about the revolutionary war really mesh with the fact that militia numbers exceeded the continental army's numbers, and even when the continental army was comprised still contributed a third of the combat force utilized by the fledgling United States... and were the whole combat force of the colonies prior to the continental army's formation anyway?
But we don't have to quibble over that.
Plus, once again, you're IN the army. You obviously chose being fed/supplied/housed/armed by the army, over having to bring your own rifle, ammo, chow, and tent. So did everyone who ponied up INTO the continental army.
Gee! Hard question... like the idea of independence? Get paid fighting for it when you'd be fighting anyway?
That's like wondering why so much SOF jumped ship to work as contractors for a bit. Getting paid 10 times as much, doing the same job?
I don't see how I'm making your point at all. They are free to do as they wish. I'm not stopping them. It's within their rights to assemble and protest within the law, and pray.
I am under NO obligation to go help hoist their holy screaming penis, nor go march alongside them when it's not a cause that I believe in nor support. I think it's absurd that you think I should be going and doing that.
Are you a member of the NRA? Do you go to rights rally's and protests for the 2nd amendment?
The very argument you pose, you fall under your supposed own point. Give me a fucking break.
Sure they do.
What recourse do they have, should their government prove overbearing and decide that those rights no longer exist?
But you'll just dismiss fact as fiction.
You're totally biased and you use your bias to interpret everything presented to you. Your views won't change, no matter what is presented to you specifically because:
- You ignore that gun law currently enacted is unenforced by the federal government
- You ignore that guns actually save lives of people
- You ignore every factual historical statement brought forward about gun control
- You ignore every first person account about the benefits of firearms
- you DO want to restrict my rights
- you most likely participate with or in organizations designed with the intent to restrict and ultimately remove my rights
The number that initially shocked me the most out of those statistics is the fact that India is second only to the US in the number of civilian owned weapons, if I am reading it correctly, followed by China.
And that number is still only 4.2 guns per 100 capita (ranked at 110th on that list, China being 102nd).
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,068
Because horses and wagons aren't metal boxes which can reach hundreds of miles per hour, thus having far more potential to be a devastating weapon (a horse can be too, but nowhere to the same extent). Also, there was a lot more common sense back then, so it probably never occurred that someone would ever try to regulate something as essential and nearly harmless as a horse -- and to their credit, I don't think anyone did. I'm not aware of a horse license (at least not in the UK), are you? I believe restrictions vary from state to state, but from what I understand, riding a horse often largely comes down to just respecting conventional traffic laws (which is a big duh).
I'm not in favour of the gun ban or gun politics in the UK, but this type of 'pop culture' misinformation is just flawed and misleading.
1) Prior to the spike, you can already see that homicide rates vary slightly year-by-year anyway. In 2010, they were actually lower than the year of the handgun ban. "The strangely high figure for 2002/2003 took into account the 173 people killed by Dr Harold Shipman over the previous 20 years. The [...] figure of 765 for 2005/2006 (which includes the 52 people killed in the 7 July bombings of 2005) represents a fall of 12 per cent on the previous year."
So a huge part in the 'increase in violence' was down to a mass murderer and the London bombings. You can see for yourself that the figures drop down after that, back to pre-ban levels.
2) "in 2010, according to the FBI, the reported rate of violent crime in the US was 403 incidents per 100,000 people–the 466 figure comes from 2007. Second, and more importantly, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”
When you look at how this changes the meaning of “violent crime,” it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the US and the UK. You’re simply comparing two different sets of crimes. In 2009/10, for instance (annual data is from September to September), British police recorded 871,712 crimes against persons, 54,509 sexual offenses, and 75,101 robberies in England and Wales. Based on the 2010 population of 55.6 million, this gives a staggeringly high violent crime rate of 1,797 offenses per 100,00 people.
But of the 871,000 crimes against the person, less than half (401,000) involved any actual injury. The remainder were mostly crimes like simple assault without injury, harassment, “possession of an article with a blade or point,” and causing “public fear, alarm, or distress.” And of the 54,000 sexual offenses, only a quarter (15,000) were rapes." http://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...e-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
If you're going to make a comparison, make sure it's comparable. How would you even check/enforce/regulate religion? Mind control hasn't exactly been perfected yet. Besides, religion only provides the pretext to kill. It's still down to individual will. The freedom of speech example is even sillier. Speech is part of human nature. You could never enforce a ban on it but you can regulate it in certain contexts -- as we currently do. So, yes, all your rights already DO carry limitations -- not against how you use them, but rather how they could infringe on other people's rights.
Try to scream that you've got a bomb whilst flying on a plane, and see how far your rights get you. Try to slander someone, and see how long it takes before lawyers take you to court. Try to post on facebook about how you want to kill such-and-such President, and see how long before the Secret Service pays you a visit. You've got natural rights, but there are contexts where they cross other people's rights. That's where justice draws the the line.
Why not explain this -- if sensible restrictions work for your other unalienable rights, why can't they work for gun ownership? I'm not talking about what's been done in practice up until now (there have been loads of retarded things, like the 'assault weapon' ban), so no need to bring that up. I'm saying, in theory, wouldn't it be sensible to have sensible checks and balances? If there would be a way to prevent it from being abused, then who would it hurt? Assuming a perfect system could be implemented, one which couldn't backfire, how could it do anything but benefit the image and status of gun owners?
I don't see the point in that when everyone is mostly saying how crappy existing regulations are.
Review everything. Throw out the bad. Come up with some good.
If gun owners don't want to take the lead on this, then the hippy anti-gun activists will forever continue to do so. To me at least, it seems like they are gaining more and more traction with each new generation of young adults. Which seems pretty sad.
Last edited:
Okay. Thank you.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
Very interesting post with the UK crime stats, that was a new perspective that I haven't seen before.
If existing regulations/laws were followed it would negate a lot of these new and upcoming laws from being "needed".
The problem with the pro 2nd A "side" proposing gun laws is that it will not put things to rest but will only hasten the slide to loosing the right to own guns (at least in the manner which we do currently). Anti gunners will be emboldened that the other side is giving ground.
IMO, we are on the back foot despite several gains in recent years. I believe education is the key to our future success.
Comparing UK to US crime rates then becomes difficult because of the widely varying definitions. No worries. Unless I'm mistaken, the UK crime data also doesn't show an appreciable change in crime before or after the handgun ban. It did nothing to curb crime by the UK's definition. That's interesting.
I have looked at the FBI data, a few years ago I even dropped it into a spreadsheet and everything, then compared the FBI's data to states with strict gun laws and those without. With a few exceptions, states with strict gun laws had higher rates of violent crime according to the FBI. Statistically speaking in the US, you are safer in a right to carry state.
I have looked at the FBI data, a few years ago I even dropped it into a spreadsheet and everything, then compared the FBI's data to states with strict gun laws and those without. With a few exceptions, states with strict gun laws had higher rates of violent crime according to the FBI. Statistically speaking in the US, you are safer in a right to carry state.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
This. I have changed more hearts and minds through this, and example of how a lawful citizen should behave while carrying than any amount of rhetoric. Well said.
Huh..I found the spreadsheet.
Anyway, for those who are bored or curious, Table 5 is what I used. The current published data is from 2012. 2013's isn't fully populated.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/violent-crime
My data was from 2010 and I pulled together a few lists for Right to Carry states.
If you want specific weapons data, Table 20 is where to go:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2012.xls
Remember that "Rifles" will include AR's, AK's and the like alongside bolt action rifles. However, you can see that rifles account for a very small percentage of weapons used.
Anyway, for those who are bored or curious, Table 5 is what I used. The current published data is from 2012. 2013's isn't fully populated.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/violent-crime
My data was from 2010 and I pulled together a few lists for Right to Carry states.
If you want specific weapons data, Table 20 is where to go:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2012.xls
Remember that "Rifles" will include AR's, AK's and the like alongside bolt action rifles. However, you can see that rifles account for a very small percentage of weapons used.
Brill
SOF Support
Wonder how many crimes were STOPPED, thus unreported, due to "victim" having a weapon and protecting themselves?
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
Stopping a crime and not reporting it is retarded (unless there's a body that you have to make disappear of course :-").
104TN
Verified Military
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 921
And then you have this little gem.
Federal Judge Ruling: AR-15′s and AK-47′s Not Protected by 2A
The judge's opinion appears to be based upon the (incorrect) assumption that the 2nd amendment is intended solely to ensure access to firearms for self-defense in the home while overlooking their more important utility in ensuring those who make and enforce laws (real or imagined) aren't able to impede rights.
Federal Judge Ruling: AR-15′s and AK-47′s Not Protected by 2A
The judge's opinion appears to be based upon the (incorrect) assumption that the 2nd amendment is intended solely to ensure access to firearms for self-defense in the home while overlooking their more important utility in ensuring those who make and enforce laws (real or imagined) aren't able to impede rights.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
A quote from the judge in the article linked...
Holy FUCK!
Again this is about education. If a judge is this fucking ignorant what hope have we got to maintain our freedom in the long run? I'm not just referencing the 2nd A in that either, I mean freedom.
To get it out the way, let me say that I am a strong advocate of the 2A, opposing bans on ARs, high-cap mags, etc. Though I believe they are a constitutional right, I usually point out that banning ARs & mags over 10 rounds would have essentially zero impact on gun violence. I will get to the statistical stuff in a later post. For this post I wanted to present something that I recently found while reading up of firearm history in the U.S.
With that in mind, I looked at early state constitutions and laws regarding firearms. No surprise- most acknowledged the individual right to bear arms, and some even made it a requirement. Some, however, did not. Most gun regulation in early America, as far as I can tell, was at the state level. Some regulations imposed by the states in our early history:
-NJ allowing armed assemblies to be disarmed by the police
-Some states had laws to keep track of firearms
-Some states banned firearms from certain locations and events (for example, PA & NY had laws banning the use of firearms on New Year's)
-PA, Mass, and NY passed laws regulated how and where gunpowder could be stored
-Some states banned firearms from free blacks
-Mass had a law requiring white adult males to swear an oath of loyalty or be banned from owning firearms (Quakers were exempt)
-Kentucky banned concealed carry weapons in 1813
-Between 1813 and 1859, the following states passed laws banning concealed weapons: Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Virginia & Georgia.
-VA's concealed carry law was so strict that you could still be charged even if you used the weapon in self defense
-Some of the state courts overturned these laws, while others (like TN) upheld them
-Arkansas appears to be the first state to interpret the right to bear arms as a collective right in 1840s
-US v Cruikshank states that the 2A "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
Of course, this is all moot nowadays because the BoR has been imposed onto the states for about a century now, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2A is a individual right. I just thought I'd bring it up to show the complexities of this debate. If we, as 2A supporters, embrace "original intent," we should understand what that intent was: that the states may very well have the power to restrict firearms in one fashion or another. No matter how you can it, the federal government has no authority to infringe on 2A rights.
Personally, I think restricting firearms is an effort in futility. Gun violence is a symptom, not a cause. Attacking a type of firearm (ARs) that accounts for far less than 3% of all gun homicides, or banning mags over ten rounds when revolvers are the firearm of choice, does nothing but provide a false sense of security to those who don't know any better. To date, I have never read a single study that demonstrated banning of a type of firearm has any net effect on violence. If we as a society are serious about curbing violence, we will start focusing on our criminal justice system, education, poverty, mental health, and (possibly) population density. Of course, those issues are not easy fixes, and I have little hope they will be pursued in a logical manner.
I have a bunch more to say regarding comparing the US vs other countries, statistics, etc. but for now I'll just close with a quote from Jeff Cooper:
Sources:
§ 2, 1799 N.J. Laws at 562; § 1, 1797 N.J. Laws at 179
Act of June 26, 1792, ch. X, 1792 Mass. Acts 208,
Act of Apr. 13, 1784, ch. 28, 1784 NY Laws 627,
Acts of Dec. 6, 1783, ch. CIV, 1783 pa. Laws 161, ch. MLIX, 11 Pa. Stat. 209
A Collection of all the Laws of the Province of Pennsylvania:Now in Force 13, 39-40, 85, 197-200, 315-17 (1742)
Act of Feb. 4, 1806, 1805-1806 Va. Acts ch. XCIV, at 51
Act of Mar. 14, 1776, ch. VII, 1775-1776 Mass. Acts 31
Act of Apr. 1, 1778, ch. LXI, §§ 2, 5, 1777-1778 Pa. Laws 123, 126
Act of Mar. 18, 1859, 1859 Ohio Laws 56
1838 Va. Acts ch. 101 at 76.
Bliss v Commonwealth, 1822
State v. Buzzard, 1842
US v Cruikshank
Article covering most of this stuff (I don't agree with everything in the article fyi). I have a bunch more if someone wants more reading:
First, I think the evidence is fairly clear that the 2A was clearly meant to be an individual right, not a collective one. I detail the reasoning behind this somewhere in the previous 82 pages. However, I found some interesting tidbits during recent research: Originally, the Bill of Rights (BoR) were largely seen as restraints on the federal government, and not the states themselves (as demonstrated in Barron v. Baltimore). The BoR became forced on the states in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and was called the Incorporation. Prior to that, the states were seen as having the right to do things that the federal government could not constitutionally do. An example would be the fact that many states had "state churches" well into the mid-1800s.With that in mind, I looked at early state constitutions and laws regarding firearms. No surprise- most acknowledged the individual right to bear arms, and some even made it a requirement. Some, however, did not. Most gun regulation in early America, as far as I can tell, was at the state level. Some regulations imposed by the states in our early history:
-NJ allowing armed assemblies to be disarmed by the police
-Some states had laws to keep track of firearms
-Some states banned firearms from certain locations and events (for example, PA & NY had laws banning the use of firearms on New Year's)
-PA, Mass, and NY passed laws regulated how and where gunpowder could be stored
-Some states banned firearms from free blacks
-Mass had a law requiring white adult males to swear an oath of loyalty or be banned from owning firearms (Quakers were exempt)
-Kentucky banned concealed carry weapons in 1813
-Between 1813 and 1859, the following states passed laws banning concealed weapons: Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Virginia & Georgia.
-VA's concealed carry law was so strict that you could still be charged even if you used the weapon in self defense
-Some of the state courts overturned these laws, while others (like TN) upheld them
-Arkansas appears to be the first state to interpret the right to bear arms as a collective right in 1840s
-US v Cruikshank states that the 2A "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
Of course, this is all moot nowadays because the BoR has been imposed onto the states for about a century now, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2A is a individual right. I just thought I'd bring it up to show the complexities of this debate. If we, as 2A supporters, embrace "original intent," we should understand what that intent was: that the states may very well have the power to restrict firearms in one fashion or another. No matter how you can it, the federal government has no authority to infringe on 2A rights.
Personally, I think restricting firearms is an effort in futility. Gun violence is a symptom, not a cause. Attacking a type of firearm (ARs) that accounts for far less than 3% of all gun homicides, or banning mags over ten rounds when revolvers are the firearm of choice, does nothing but provide a false sense of security to those who don't know any better. To date, I have never read a single study that demonstrated banning of a type of firearm has any net effect on violence. If we as a society are serious about curbing violence, we will start focusing on our criminal justice system, education, poverty, mental health, and (possibly) population density. Of course, those issues are not easy fixes, and I have little hope they will be pursued in a logical manner.
I have a bunch more to say regarding comparing the US vs other countries, statistics, etc. but for now I'll just close with a quote from Jeff Cooper:
Sources:
§ 2, 1799 N.J. Laws at 562; § 1, 1797 N.J. Laws at 179
Act of June 26, 1792, ch. X, 1792 Mass. Acts 208,
Act of Apr. 13, 1784, ch. 28, 1784 NY Laws 627,
Acts of Dec. 6, 1783, ch. CIV, 1783 pa. Laws 161, ch. MLIX, 11 Pa. Stat. 209
A Collection of all the Laws of the Province of Pennsylvania:Now in Force 13, 39-40, 85, 197-200, 315-17 (1742)
Act of Feb. 4, 1806, 1805-1806 Va. Acts ch. XCIV, at 51
Act of Mar. 14, 1776, ch. VII, 1775-1776 Mass. Acts 31
Act of Apr. 1, 1778, ch. LXI, §§ 2, 5, 1777-1778 Pa. Laws 123, 126
Act of Mar. 18, 1859, 1859 Ohio Laws 56
1838 Va. Acts ch. 101 at 76.
Bliss v Commonwealth, 1822
State v. Buzzard, 1842
US v Cruikshank
Article covering most of this stuff (I don't agree with everything in the article fyi). I have a bunch more if someone wants more reading:
At the end of all this, I arrive at the same conclusion.
Count me among the many thousands of true believers who, when faced with the anti-gun frenzy, simply state "come and get them".
I ain't giving up shit. End of story.
That's what I need. A new t-shirt with crossed rifles and that statement, screwed grammar and all.
Count me among the many thousands of true believers who, when faced with the anti-gun frenzy, simply state "come and get them".
I ain't giving up shit. End of story.
That's what I need. A new t-shirt with crossed rifles and that statement, screwed grammar and all.
