|
| Thread: Right to Self Defense, Gun Ownership, and Deterence of Crime |  This thread is pages long: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 20 30 40 50 55 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted January 08, 2012 04:57 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
Lastly, the second amendment. It's clear, that the constitution grants the right of weapon ownership only with a view on the necessity of an able militia - that is, for the survival of a free state. It's not difficult to see that the founding fathers not only lived in a time and a country where there were many opportunities to be attacked, but where people had to be able to deal with all kinds of potential threats on their own. In times of an external threat there would be no time to build up AND TRAIN an army - people would have to know how to work a gun.
This isn't really why the second amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. Granted - I'm not a constitutional scholar, but my understanding has always been that the right to bear arms was deemed important not because citizens needed to be about to protect themselves from outside aggressors (foreign nations, indians, criminals living in the woods, etc.), but so that citizens could to protect themselves from their own potentially hostile government. That's really the frame of mind that Founders had when they wrote the entire constitution - they no longer wanted to live under an totalitarian and authoritative central government. Look at the other amendments in the bill of rights (no unreasonable search and seizure, right to free speech, religion and assembly, right to not have soldiers quartered in your home, right to due process, right to trial by jury (peers), right to a civil trial, no cruel/unusual punishment, etc.) and you'll see an obvious theme: they all protect the people from their own government. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, it was believed that having the right to bear arms was an important check/balance against a central government that might grow too powerful. In other words, arms were seen not as a necessary tool to repel foreign invaders; they were seen as an important tool to revolt against an authorative govt if it was necessary. Even the idea of a militia fits into this view, as a militia was not an official standing army. The Founders wanted people to have the right to form their own army of citizens which could be independent of any standing army maintained by the central gov't.
By the way, speaking of militias and related to the first sentence of the passage I quoted, the US Supreme Court, which IS made up of constitutional scholars, has ruled in 2008 that the right to bear arms as stated in the constition was never intended to only be connected with serving in a militia.
See District of Columbia vs. Heller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 08, 2012 05:36 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:39, 08 Jan 2012.
|
Quote:
By the way, in 2000 30% of all gunshot injuries were ACCIDENTAL:
Earlier in the thread I posted stats comparing accidental gunshot deaths to accidental deaths from tripping. Tripping has far more fatalities.
As long as there are human beings there will be accidents. The fact that there are accidents in no way justifies denying someone the right to defend himself.
Quote:
Lastly, the second amendment. It's clear, that the constitution grants the right of weapon ownership only with a view on the necessity of an able militia - that is, for the survival of a free state.
You are wrong. The founders wanted citizens to at all times carry guns around to be able to defend themselves against criminals and as a deterrent to the state becoming tyrannical. The founders stated it is not only the right but the duty of citizens to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical.
Clicky
Jefferson
Quote:
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."
Quote:
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.
Quote:
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
James Madison
Quote:
"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms."
SAMUEL ADAMS
Quote:
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . . ."
GEORGE MASON
Quote:
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."
NOAH WEBSTER
Quote:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
TENCHE COXE
Quote:
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he 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."
RICHARD HENRY LEE
Quote:
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
Richard Henry Lee - Senator, First Congress
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..."
GEORGE WASHINGTON
Quote:
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."
"A free people ought not only to be armed..."
PATRICK HENRY
Quote:
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
ALEXANDER HAMILTON
Quote:
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Unfortunately there are dishonest judges who want to impose their own policies on Americans rather than correctly apply the Constitution to cases. Any judge who can read and who reads the Constitution and compares it to the other writings of the founders can only conclude that the founders stated that it is a right of the each law-abiding citizen to at all times carry firearms.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 08, 2012 05:38 PM |
|
|
I plain disagree.
The whole purpose of the constitution is to make any kind of armed resistance against the government unnecessary, because the government is a servant of the people, not the other way round.
If it was in fact intended that way, people wouldn't get far with a pistol or a ahotgun - obviously.
In fact this would make EVERYTHING rather fragile, and you would have to wonder whether a standing army - president being the commander in times of trouble - wouldn't sink that purpose immediately.
So, sorry - no.
Of course I don't want to claim I'd be a constitutional scholar. However, the idea of a standing army is NOT part of the 18th century. That's why a MILITIA in the 18th century is what the American army was when they fought for their independence,
And what the Supreme court ruled ... excuse me, but I think that judgement is rather doubtful. I don't think the judges are (were) neutral.
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted January 08, 2012 05:48 PM |
|
|
Why wouldn't you allow people to carry weapons to defend themselves? Criminals are still going to carry them, law or no law, so you might as well allow civilians to wear them so they can fight back, no?
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 08, 2012 06:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why wouldn't you allow people to carry weapons to defend themselves? Criminals are still going to carry them, law or no law, so you might as well allow civilians to wear them so they can fight back, no?
As I said last page:
What else would you expect from the 3rd world country of America? If your police and social equality worked like a first world country, there wouldn't be any need of guns in the first place.
Now... you have poverty, desperate theifs, a weird social moral for the starved, and actual crime problems. Banning guns doesn't make any sense until you fix those problems.
Banning guns is a sign of that society is civilized in the first place. If the politicans ban them before that, it becomes a hellhole too.
____________
|
|
moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted January 08, 2012 09:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This isn't really why the second amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. Granted - I'm not a constitutional scholar, but my understanding has always been that the right to bear arms was deemed important not because citizens needed to be about to protect themselves from outside aggressors (foreign nations, indians, criminals living in the woods, etc.), but so that citizens could to protect themselves from their own potentially hostile government.
I would argue that amendment is pretty darn outdated. Unless you want to argue that seeing a mob storm the capital with rains of bullets blazing through the air to overthrow their government is a civilized and perfectly acceptable way of doing things in a first world country of the 21st century. In which case I'll go and have a laugh.
Fun fact: You don't need guns to do that.
Fun fact: Government = the people.
Fun fact: Police = the people.
Quote:
What else would you expect from the 3rd world country of America? If your police and social equality worked like a first world country, there wouldn't be any need of guns in the first place.
Now... you have poverty, desperate theifs, a weird social moral for the starved, and actual crime problems. Banning guns doesn't make any sense until you fix those problems.
Banning guns is a sign of that society is civilized in the first place. If the politicans ban them before that, it becomes a hellhole too.
Quoted for truth.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 26, 2012 01:33 AM |
|
|
78 year old man shoots armed home invader. Home defense, folks. Don't be a victim. Protect yourself and your family.
Clicky
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 26, 2012 02:10 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 04:08, 26 Feb 2012.
|
"I just fired one shot, then my gun jammed."
"If my gun hadn't jammed, I'd have emptied it on him."
A couple of chosen phrases to stir up some discussion.
Namely, if his gun had jammed a shot earlier, or if the gramps had missed... well, for one, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now because you wouldn't have posted it, El. Bonus points would've been awarded for it happening to a 30 year old living with a wife and two children, and/or if there had been two invaders.
It's tough to require people to take those risks to defend themselves. Especially in a country with a functional law enforcement service.
The other phrase is more or less self explanatory. I don't figure the man is psychotic (though it's, of course, not excluded), and the only other reason for that attitude is that it stems from said law enforcement being incapable of setting examples, so that people need to set them themselves. In this case, by turning teenagers into a pile of pulp on the floor so that there are hopefully less robberies in the neighbourhood when word gets out.
The horned, pointy-tailed socialist on my shoulder insists that the local community knew robberies are on the rise (as stated in the article), and therefore had a duty to increase manpower assigned to the area, and/or provide a publicly sponsored change of locks to any taxpayer that wants it, so that everyone would have enough time to call the cops if something like this happens.
The apolitical, harp-playing agnostic on the other side believes that this would perhaps be a silly idea - probably so, since it was invented by a socialist - but something certainly needs to be done. If nothing, because it's sort of unfitting for a 21st century superpower and self proclaimed best nation on Earth to rely on its citizens to engage in gunfights with bandits in order to not get slaughtered in their own beds at night.
The tiny, drunken, naked anarchist barely keeping himself from falling off my third shoulder, though, keeps his index finger lifted in a wobbly explanation of his theory that when an entire governing system isn't, from head to toe, complete ****, then people don't tend to routinely break into other people's homes to steal ****, nor do perceived remedies for that problem result in children shooting each other in schools. Both the socialist and the apolitical parts of conscience are getting increasingly embarrassed but can't really do anything to stop him because he tends to shout and urinate at them whenever they try to get any nearer.
I am going to stop editing this post now before it goes utterly out of control.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted February 26, 2012 02:16 AM |
|
|
I was always taught to check up on old folk who have their newspapers out on the porch.
The intruder chould've been a guy with good intentions (family or neigbours) and said fella would've still been blasted away since the old coot didn't even check for confirmation as to the identity of the intruder, he just blasted blindly and hoped for the best.
Now I'm glad that the gamble paid off, but there was just far too much room for mistakes.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 26, 2012 02:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
78 year old man shoots armed home invader. Home defense, folks. Don't be a victim. Protect yourself and your family.
3rd grade girl shot when boy brings loaded handgun into school.
LINK
I'm sure we could do this all day.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2012 02:45 AM |
|
|
one thing I don't get is why people like Elodin alwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaays mention your hundreds of years old constitution.
Why is it so important?
In my country, nobody cares about the constitution and it doesn't have a lot of power. Nobody talks about it. In the US, the constitution seems to be a HUGE deal and it feels that you can barely change any laws or policies without consulting the constiution. It's ridiculous.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 26, 2012 02:51 AM |
|
|
If you knew anything about our laws at all, you'd understand.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2012 02:59 AM |
|
|
that's an enlightening comment
well, your law and political system doesn't seem to be very efficient
I also don't get why the founding fathers are so important, they lived hundreds of years ago. Why care about them now?
Their values are probably a bit old-fashioned in modern times. But I guess its mostly conservatives that really care about them.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2012 02:59 AM |
|
|
laws? what for? 
seriously, why try to invent laws for anything that may happen? it's just impossible, and then they are like "damn, we never thought about this, so we can do nothing because there is nothing in the law"
Quote:
The other phrase is more or less self explanatory. I don't figure the man is psychotic (though it's, of course, not excluded), and the only other reason for that attitude is that it stems from said law enforcement being incapable of setting examples, so that people need to set them themselves. In this case, by turning teenagers into a pile of pulp on the floor so that there are hopefully less robberies in the neighbourhood when word gets out.
you are harsh with the man. he was most likely just afraid.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2012 04:11 AM |
|
|
Basically, it comes down to:
Can people be trusted to keep their kids away from their guns?
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 26, 2012 07:24 AM |
|
|
*sigh*
Because the Constitution IS our fundamental law, which is stated pretty clearly in the Supremacy Clause. The Constitution sets the boundaries of what kinds of laws Congress can pass (indeed, it grants the right of Congress to pass laws in the first place) and what laws trump what other laws.
It we did NOT follow the Contitution in passing laws, it'd be a sort of legal anarchy. Legistlatures could pass any kind of law they wanted to, and there'd be no litmus test with which to decide whether the law should be applied or not, and there'd be no way to settle disputes between legislatures that pass conflicting laws (state and federal levels).
You may think Sweden doesn't care about it's Constitution, but I'll wager you a pepperoni pizza that you're dead wrong. But what the hell do I know - maybe Swedish officials just pass whatever laws they damn well please and the people just have to live with it, and judges base decisions on what kind of mood they're in. *shrug*
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted February 26, 2012 08:37 AM |
|
|
Another perspective on the US constitution: Changing the constitution is a HUGE hurdle. It was designed that way. You have to get 2/3 approval in both houses and then have 3/4 of the states ratify it. Thus the document serves as a kind of massive brake on social evolution, which is why 90% of the time when somebody is bleating about the constitution it's a conservative. Of course none of them ever mentions that the original framers were all misogynist racist agrarians.
BTW Cor, did you ever get a gun?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 26, 2012 02:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I also don't get why the founding fathers are so important, they lived hundreds of years ago. Why care about them now?
Their values are probably a bit old-fashioned in modern times. But I guess its mostly conservatives that really care about them.
What I find ironic is that most of them would still be considered radical today in America.
They are against big corporation influence, against lobbing, are completely split on civil liberties, hardcore on the age of enlightments ideals. Their only "real mistake" was failing to write the constitution against the techology advancement that came shortly thereafter.
The constitution is benchmarked agains the 13 colonies, and the distance between them. The area back in the day was so waste that having the same parties in the 13 colonies would be impossible, and any megacorporation would be so disconnected that each area would turn into separate branches. Which is also the reason that for example Britains "exploiting our colonies" corps was divided into branches. But as for the distance, the distance completely disappered once the railroad infastructure, highways, cars, telegraphs and phone network got produced. What was a impossible distance of several weeks travel in 1787 is now a 6-8 hour trip by a car on a highway with a artifical low speed limit. What was a delay of several weeks for a letter was almost a century ago just a phonecall away and has not decreased in distance since.
For somebody as liberal(fighting for some sort of civil rights), radical(fighting for something that was new back then), and as highly educated, and cynical, the Founding Fathers failed hard at writing a proper piece of constitution. A lot of them even agreed on that if you gave somebody a chance to fix something, they might not do it, and they let the constitution fall into the hands of random people who would make a goverment some time after they died.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 26, 2012 11:49 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:50, 26 Feb 2012.
|
Quote:
It's tough to require people to take those risks to defend themselves. Especially in a country with a functional law enforcement service.
Errrrrr....I never said anything about "requiring" anyone to defend himself. Oh, but there is no technology to beam in a swap team when press a button. The practical reality is if someone is breaking into your house and you call 911, the cops are not going to be able to reach you after your 911 call before the home invader does. You can chose to exercise your right to defend yourself and your family or you can be at the mercy of the home invader.
Quote:
I was always taught to check up on old folk who have their newspapers out on the porch.
The intruder chould've been a guy with good intentions (family or neigbours) and said fella would've still been blasted away since the old coot didn't even check for confirmation as to the identity of the intruder, he just blasted blindly and hoped for the best.
Nah, if the home invader had actually been a person of good intention he would not have broken in unless he saw the home owner laying on the floor and unresponsive. If for some reason a good intentioned person had felt the need to immediately break in to investigate even though he saw no body/blood/ect through though the window he would have been yelling "Mr Jones/Dad/neighbor/Grandpa are you are ok? Where are you?" or something similar.
The 78 year old man knew from the circumstances the home invader was a home invader, not a person who wished him well.
Quote:
I'm sure we could do this all day.
A firearms accident that occurred as a result of illegal activities by a child is no more reason to rule that I should not be allowed to defend myself with a firearm than a burglar fleeing cops and slipping down on icy pavement and breaking his neck is a good reason to rule that walking should be illegal.
Quote:
one thing I don't get is why people like Elodin alwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaays mention your hundreds of years old constitution.
I believe in the rule of law. In order to have the rule of law rather than the rule of a despot a constitution is needed. The founders had lived under despotic rule and wrote a constitution that would severely limit the power of the federal government and divided that power into three branches which were each to be to check and balance the power of the other branches. The founders made sure to state that the rights of the people are NOT derived from the government but that the power of the government IS derived from the people. All rights and powers not enumerated in the Constitution as being for the federal government were reserved for the people and the states. Of course there has been a massive power grab by the federal government and it is operating way outside its scope of constitutional powers.
The Constitution of the US has worked better in some ways than the founders envisioned and worse in some respects than they had thought. For instance, lifetime appointment of judges is a failure as liberal judges who have no respect for the rule of law can effectively legislate through the bench with virtually no way of removing them. I favor a constitutional amendment to allow recall elections to be held for both elected officials and for appointed "untouchable" bureaucrats.
Quote:
Another perspective on the US constitution: Changing the constitution is a HUGE hurdle. It was designed that way.
Indeed. The founders intended the government to be operated with the CONSENT of the people. The laws should reflect will of the people, not the will of bureaucrats.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 27, 2012 01:12 AM |
|
|
Pardon me if that was asked before:
Elodin, have you ever killed anyone?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
| |
|
|
