[talaniman]

Your whole argument is framed around the notion that someone is coming to take your guns and that is simply not true. Most can agree we should be a lot more careful with who can buy one, and balance our rights to those guns with a reasonable safety measure, for all of us.

[paraclete]

It's not an imagined right, it is enumerated in the constitution and upheld by the courts. You people don't hunt in Canada and and Australia? You don't believe in being able to protect yourself, intolerant morons try to force their values on us and leave us vulnerable to the godless animals their values created.

What do you mean we don't hunt? we have a wide variety of species that are hunted, Buffalo, Kangaroo, Pig, birds. Of course we believe in protecting ourselves but we also believe in the rule of law, therefore the vigilante is not a response. Why don't you eliminate the clueless morons who are perpetrating the crime? you can't do it so the gun doesn't protect you, it is an ICON, and you might as well pray to it for all the good it does.This is what you don't get, for all your weapons you are not protected, you are all in your head

[speechlesstx]

Tal, your people say you aren't coming after our guns but I don't believe it. It's the camel's nose under the tent with you people. Get over it, is our right and we aren't ceding it.

Clete, we are the ones that believe in the rule of law unlike our emperor. That's one more reason to protect our rights. And if think our guns are just an icon you're deluded. Violent crime went way down in Texas after concealed carry, and you can ask the sheriff in Detroit about the value of a gun. He used to be a gun control advocate, now he's a gun carry advocate and for good reason.

[cdad]

Tal, that is not what the agrument is over. Are there some that want to remove guns from everyone? Yes !

That doesnt change the roots of gun ownership. Those based on protection, sport and hunting.

Harvard study concludes that gun control does not prevent murders, other violent crime

[talaniman]

Well then what does prevent murders and crime? It sure ain't armed citizen. How about MORE cops on the beat (the very definition of well regulated militias)? Yeah, I know thats an EXPENSIVE fix, for a nation that blows a billion regularly on political campaigns.

[cdad]

All more cops on the beat mean is that the government will be encroaching into your life even more. The fix might be to step back and start over with education and with skillsets that actually motivate people rather then push them into victimhood. In life as we all know it there are winners and losers. But in todays society there is a tendency to create a falsehood that everyone is equal. That is a blatant and cruel lie perpetuated by the current system. We need to allow some to fail so they can figure out how to reach above the line. Without that skillset then you create victims.

One way to prevent crime from happening is a proactive citizenry that is involved in community and not just ones that only care for what is in front of their noses. Contrary to what the news is telling us daily there are still many more good then bad people walking around.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

Hey folks, I'm all for our gun rights in the US, I do not own a gun, I often go with friends and enjoy a day shooting skeet or targets in the range, but I'm not going to take sides here. I have some "Facts" to propose for you to argue over.

A little history, in 1996 there was a massacre in Australia that left 35 people dead, this sparked a political movement that nationally banned automatic rifles, shotguns, etc. The same set of laws strictly regulated new sales of guns and mandated a buy back of purchased weapons that resulted in citizens surrendering over 600,000 firearms and gun ownership of citizens to fall from 7% to 5%.

Aftermath, some studies indicate that in the following decade there have been significant decreases in both gun related homicides (59%) and suicides (65%). These same studies indicate that considering these things, there was also no increased non gun related suicide/homicide incidents. After the laws were passed for a few years statistics show that there was an increase in the violence and then a more or less steady fall. Overall homicide rates fell from 385 in 1999 to 282 in 2007, and the number of gun related homicides have fallen from 24% to 11%. These numbers have been argued to be insignificant considering the very low homicide rates in Australia in general.

On the other hand, an AIC study indicated that gun related homicides were well on a fall long before gun control laws were enacted. Furthermore the University of Melbourne released a paper that suggests that gun control laws have had little effect on gun related deaths. Still yet many others suggest that the fall in gun crimes was catalyzed by the law, and cite figures showing that the decrease happened more quickly after the law.

One of the strongest arguments against gun control cites the many genocides in recent history have a precursor of gun control laws, here is a chart I found that have several articles attached and is well cited. It has been commonplace in history that governments or ruling bodies enact some sort of weapon control in order to disarm the citizens, their ideology being surrounded with tyranny, sadism, and hate. The Cambodia Genocide comes to mind, as it seems mostly related, in that the Government sought after the educated persons rather than a specific ethnic or religious group.

My thoughts and studies on the matter, happy debating ;).

[tomder55]

when the founders talked of 'well regulated militias ' they did NOT have cops in mind.
The line came out of the objections to Article 1 Sec 8 Clause 16 of the Constitution. That clause gave Congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Among other founders ,George Mason had objection that he penned in a letter to Jefferson.

There are many other things very objectionable in the proposed new Constitution; particularly the almost unlimited Authority over the Militia of the several States; whereby, under Colour of regulating, they may disarm, or render useless the Militia, the more easily to govern by a standing Army; or they may harrass the Militia, by such rigid Regulations, and intollerable Burdens, as to make the People themselves desire it's Abolition. By their Power over the Elections, they may so order them, as to deprive the People at large of any Share in the Choice of their Representatives.

George Mason to Thomas Jefferson
The 2nd Amendment makes it clear that the militia is the people ;not the police .

[paraclete]

even though the op is about not taking and carrying guns in a specific place let's look at Tom's contention for a moment

when the founders talked of 'well regulated militias ' they did NOT have cops in mind.
The line came out of the objections to Article 1 Sec 8 Clause 16 of the Constitution. That clause gave Congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Whether they had a peace officer role in mind is moote, what they did not have in mind was a lawless population. As gun ownership is specifically linked to the presence of a militia, as Tom has provided evidence of, how is it that every person who owns a gun is not a protem member of that militia, required to be trained and fully submitting to officers appointed? Where is the discipline prescribed by Congress? You see that the very idea of why gun ownership was considered necessary has been lost because, those self same militias exist in a different form, in police, national guard and even a standing military force

[talaniman]

The 2nd Amendment makes it clear that the militia is the people ;not the police .

The police are the people, charged with serve and protect. Even the founders found it was best that militias were organized under a command structure. And where do you think cops come from... MARS? They are the best modern day version of militias we have and these gun toters today are but untrained vigilantes, mostly anti government reactionaries waiting to be relevant.

Come on, repelling invading armies is unlikely and if you hate the government that much you are talking a bloody civil war. Hell, we have elections every 2 years if your not happy, not armed coups. I'll be glad when you guys evolve into the 21st century. You have commented how we shouldn't judge the founders by modern standards, so how about not judging modern life by 18th century standards.

[speechlesstx]

I don't trust the cops, they're becoming more militarized by the day. Why does every force need an MRAP? Sorry dude, the only one I can depend on is me, not the cops, not the feds who spy on us, not you. Guns are our right, get over it.

[paraclete]

I don't trust the cops, they're becoming more militarized by the day. Why does every force need an MRAP? Sorry dude, the only one I can depend on is me, not the cops, not the feds who spy on us, not you. Guns are our right, get over it.

Speech, have you ever considered that the police consider they are facing an ever increasing violent population who have access to sohisticated weapons. they no long face hand guns, or the occasional criminal, but organised gangs of various persuasion. A MRAP is just a surplus military vehicle that provides protection in the face of a bad situation. These people are there to protect you so you don't have to protect yourself because it is highly likely that in doing so you will be harmed. I really don't understand why you don't get it. Look I don't care if you possess a weapon so long as it is secure, but if you start carrying it around in a public place I consider you have crossed a line where your motives should be questioned?

[tomder55]

sorry tal . I know what they meant by militia and that was NOT an instrument of the government.

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823
Coxe also wrote in the Philadelphia Gazette

Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

Hamilton wrote in Federalist #29
What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national

government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course

Madison wrote in Federalist #46

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

[paraclete]

so Tom is the word "militia" an alternate rendering of the word "people" as these persons are considered to be so numerous that they are incapable of being disciplined. What a marvelous insight that was, that dispite the provisions that the militia should be under the authority of the officers appointed, they are incapable of being disciplined. As to the assertion that the kingdoms in Europe don't trust their people, it may have been with good reason, certainly in Britain where there had been several rebellions, invasions and civil war, there may have been good sense in not having an armed population. These papers also refer to swords

One other suggested the militia should be assembled, what an outcry there would be if there was a call for every person possessing a weapon, and thus being a member of the militia, should be called to be assembled. That what transpired in the latter eighteenth century has any relevance today is surely a nonsense since those provisions are incapable of being enforced.

[tomder55]

there is a Constitutional way to deal with it if a provision has become out of date the amendment process. For the statists however ,that is too much an inconvenience when the alternative of the state imposing it's will can be expeditious.

[speechlesstx]

Clete, don't believe everything you read. I get the impression that the libs here have you thinking this is the old West with everyone carrying and gunfights in the street. It isn't, unless you're in Detroit. It is disturbing that the not only the police but feds, such as the IRS and BLM are stocking up on ammo and automatic weapons, and as with Cliven Bundy rounding up their property locked and loaded. Guns are our right, get over it, and the founders knew the value of protecting those rights and ourselves from an overbearing, out of control government as well.

[paraclete]

speech insurrection is never the answer, it just gets people killed, the last time there was an insurrection it end badly for those who sought to exercise their rights

[cdad]

Speech, have you ever considered that the police consider they are facing an ever increasing violent population who have access to sohisticated weapons. they no long face hand guns, or the occasional criminal, but organised gangs of various persuasion. A MRAP is just a surplus military vehicle that provides protection in the face of a bad situation. These people are there to protect you so you don't have to protect yourself because it is highly likely that in doing so you will be harmed. I really don't understand why you don't get it. Look I don't care if you possess a weapon so long as it is secure, but if you start carrying it around in a public place I consider you have crossed a line where your motives should be questioned?

So you support raids on children ? I wonder how armed this baby was while sleeping in his crib?

Toddler critically burned when SWAT team throws flashbang in crib ? RT USA


This type of thing is happening on a daily basis. The police call it training and use brute force over and above what is needed because homeland security has bought them some pretty toys. So to justify their use they perform no knock raids - Just as done with home invasions. They are losing the very people they are sworn to protect and have moved into an abusive role. Just look at youtube and you will see thousands of cases where they have overstepped their bounds of decency.

[talaniman]

I have nothing against any good citizen having a gun(S), especially those in the rural areas where it's a necessary tool of survival. So there is nothing for me to get over at all, but trust without verifying that good citizen is not a good idea, given the bad guys never worry about the law, or the consequences of breaking them, and the some loonies are far more dangerous than others. Too ignore THAT danger is preposterous. To accept it as the price of doing freedom is equally as preposterous.

The cops are accountable and the locals have full responsibility, and ability to oversee and regulate their cops. The whole notion they should have less tools than the elements they protect us against is preposterous even with the local financial situations being limited, or severely suppressed. While I can acknowledge the bad behaviour of some cops, lets not exaggerate it beyond reason, and common sense when we have the ability to improve, and the procedure to punish bad behavior.

Glad you conservatives love history, and can quote the thoughts of the founders, but failure to apply those founding principles to today's situations throws the baby out with the bathwater, and ignores the obvious, the founders are not here to advise and have no power to consent, or debate the challenges that we face and divide us into no actions or reasonable solutions.

Reagan said trust but verify, not trust and do NOTHING, and certainly not just live in fear because you don't trust.

[paraclete]

I agree with you Tal, liberty and freedom arn't the same thing. Those founders everyone is fond of quoting lived a very different existence and their views may have been much modified if faced with modern dilemmas