One trigger pull one bullet how can that be a bad thing. What do you think we should have?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums
Mass shooting in Colorado theater
- Thread starter Dreamer
- Start date
One trigger pull one bullet how can that be a bad thing. What do you think we should have?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums
paullud
Veteran Expediter
xiggi's right about the hype. Remember those rifles from the westerns, or the TV show Rifleman? Those are all semiautomatic assault weapons. Each squeeze of the trigger gets you one round. A six-shooter is a semiautomatic assault weapon. One squeeze of the trigger equals one round.
As for the need for private ownership of assault weapons.... Well, here's how it works. The notion that citizens have no good reason to be armed, because the State can protect them from violent crime, is one of the most dangerous lies Big Government has fed its subjects. The people of an orderly nation surrender the business of vengeance to the government, replacing it with the rule of law. They cannot be expected to surrender the right of defense. The right to protect yourself, and your family, from injury and death is an essential part of your dignity as a free man or woman. Citizen access to firearms has reduced crime rates time and again, but this is more than a matter of practicality. It’s a question of principle.
Without the First Amendment, you are a slave. Without the Second, you are a child.
The Western nations which have abandoned this essential understanding of an individual’s right to self-defense have become rotting orphanages filled with dependent children. They’re not dealing very well with the invasion of a determined ideology that has complete confidence in its own righteousness, and few reservations about using violence to assert itself. Losing the dignity of self-defense is part of the degeneration from master of the State to its client. As this dignity fades, the people and their government speak less of responsibilities, and more of entitlements. Like children. The Second Amendment is a concrete expression of the American birthright of independence. With the right of self-defense bargained away, our rights to speak and vote give us at most modest influence in a collective. The Founders wanted more, and better, for us.
There are those, mostly liberals, who sneer at the idea we might keep arms against government tyranny, because a bunch of pistol-packing Tea Party types have no chance of repeating the success of the Revolution against our modern military force. This completely misses the point. A disarmed populace has little choice but to obey orders. You'll do as you're told, and you'll like it. If the population is armed, a tyrant’s forces have to do more than just brandish their weapon - they’d have to start pulling triggers. Victory for a righteous populace would come in the military’s refusal to pull those triggers. Tyranny should never be easy. Of course, it should never come to that again, in the United States. As long as the population is armed, this is an understanding, and a duty…not an assumption.
The right to keep and bear arms is the critical intersection of Liberty and Obligation. A gun owner is entrusted with the solemn duty to tend his weapons carefully and securely. In accepting this duty, we remove the destiny of ourselves and our loved ones and neighbors from the hands of madmen, be those madmen the Government or criminals. Life, Liberty and Safety is not measured by how many minutes it takes for a friendly police car to arrive to protect us.
It would be a mark of our maturity as a nation if we stopped telling ourselves that freedom can exist in the absence of responsibility… or danger. It can't. Because freedom can be so easily taken away, freedom necessarily carries with it great danger and a high level of responsibility.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . 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." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"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." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
There's little doubt in my mind that a lot of people today, maybe most, don't have a clue what Liberty means. They think they do, but it's in the context, ironically, of the direct consequences of other people owning guns, which they fail to see. Not surprising to many, but incredulous to others, James Madison's proposal for the freedom of religion was made reluctantly out of fear that it would be rejected or narrowed beyond use, and he was right, it almost was. The right of free speech was another hotly debated one. His right of the people to peaceably assemble passed only after a hotly contested and bitter debate. But his proposal of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed was not debated except only in the wording, and was passed by unanimous voice vote without objection.
Think about that for a minute. The three things that were the most hotly debated are held as sacrosanct today, and the one thing they passed because there was no question it was needed is the one thing that has been watered down, by government, because of the will of the people who fail to grasp the meaning of freedom, and by a government who absolutely knows its meaning. That right there is the need for the people to own and bear arms, be they "assault" or otherwise. Samuel Adams, a handgun owner who pressed for an amendment stating that the "Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," would be shocked to hear that his native state today imposes a year's sentence, without probation or parole, for carrying any firearm without a permit from The State.
Again, without the First Amendment, you are a slave. Without the Second, you are a child. The right to keep and bears arms, even assault weapons, is the foundation of Liberty. Without that right, we are as a nation utterly dependent on the government for our safety and protection. Dependent is not liberty, no matter how you spin it.
It should also be noted, the Second Amendment does not actually establish the right to keep and bear arms, despite what it says and despite how people interpret it. The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, does not in any way establish any "natural" rights, they merely recognize those rights as "self-evident". People, absent of any government, have the natural right to protect themselves, have the right to keep and bear arms (instruments or weapons of offense or defense). The government can't take away that natural right anymore than they can take away the self-evident right to breathe.
The theory of republican government (not political parties, mind you, but theories of structure in that the government is a "public matter" and not a private concern of the head of state), being a government of, by and for the people, the self-evident and natural rights must still apply. There were those who argued that some of these rights, especially those with a history of governments abusing or removing entirely, should be be made explicit in the Bill of Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding of republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. Turns out that was a very good idea.
As for the need for private ownership of assault weapons.... Well, here's how it works. The notion that citizens have no good reason to be armed, because the State can protect them from violent crime, is one of the most dangerous lies Big Government has fed its subjects. The people of an orderly nation surrender the business of vengeance to the government, replacing it with the rule of law. They cannot be expected to surrender the right of defense. The right to protect yourself, and your family, from injury and death is an essential part of your dignity as a free man or woman. Citizen access to firearms has reduced crime rates time and again, but this is more than a matter of practicality. It’s a question of principle.
Without the First Amendment, you are a slave. Without the Second, you are a child.
The Western nations which have abandoned this essential understanding of an individual’s right to self-defense have become rotting orphanages filled with dependent children. They’re not dealing very well with the invasion of a determined ideology that has complete confidence in its own righteousness, and few reservations about using violence to assert itself. Losing the dignity of self-defense is part of the degeneration from master of the State to its client. As this dignity fades, the people and their government speak less of responsibilities, and more of entitlements. Like children. The Second Amendment is a concrete expression of the American birthright of independence. With the right of self-defense bargained away, our rights to speak and vote give us at most modest influence in a collective. The Founders wanted more, and better, for us.
There are those, mostly liberals, who sneer at the idea we might keep arms against government tyranny, because a bunch of pistol-packing Tea Party types have no chance of repeating the success of the Revolution against our modern military force. This completely misses the point. A disarmed populace has little choice but to obey orders. You'll do as you're told, and you'll like it. If the population is armed, a tyrant’s forces have to do more than just brandish their weapon - they’d have to start pulling triggers. Victory for a righteous populace would come in the military’s refusal to pull those triggers. Tyranny should never be easy. Of course, it should never come to that again, in the United States. As long as the population is armed, this is an understanding, and a duty…not an assumption.
The right to keep and bear arms is the critical intersection of Liberty and Obligation. A gun owner is entrusted with the solemn duty to tend his weapons carefully and securely. In accepting this duty, we remove the destiny of ourselves and our loved ones and neighbors from the hands of madmen, be those madmen the Government or criminals. Life, Liberty and Safety is not measured by how many minutes it takes for a friendly police car to arrive to protect us.
It would be a mark of our maturity as a nation if we stopped telling ourselves that freedom can exist in the absence of responsibility… or danger. It can't. Because freedom can be so easily taken away, freedom necessarily carries with it great danger and a high level of responsibility.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . 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." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"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." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
There's little doubt in my mind that a lot of people today, maybe most, don't have a clue what Liberty means. They think they do, but it's in the context, ironically, of the direct consequences of other people owning guns, which they fail to see. Not surprising to many, but incredulous to others, James Madison's proposal for the freedom of religion was made reluctantly out of fear that it would be rejected or narrowed beyond use, and he was right, it almost was. The right of free speech was another hotly debated one. His right of the people to peaceably assemble passed only after a hotly contested and bitter debate. But his proposal of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed was not debated except only in the wording, and was passed by unanimous voice vote without objection.
Think about that for a minute. The three things that were the most hotly debated are held as sacrosanct today, and the one thing they passed because there was no question it was needed is the one thing that has been watered down, by government, because of the will of the people who fail to grasp the meaning of freedom, and by a government who absolutely knows its meaning. That right there is the need for the people to own and bear arms, be they "assault" or otherwise. Samuel Adams, a handgun owner who pressed for an amendment stating that the "Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," would be shocked to hear that his native state today imposes a year's sentence, without probation or parole, for carrying any firearm without a permit from The State.
Again, without the First Amendment, you are a slave. Without the Second, you are a child. The right to keep and bears arms, even assault weapons, is the foundation of Liberty. Without that right, we are as a nation utterly dependent on the government for our safety and protection. Dependent is not liberty, no matter how you spin it.
It should also be noted, the Second Amendment does not actually establish the right to keep and bear arms, despite what it says and despite how people interpret it. The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, does not in any way establish any "natural" rights, they merely recognize those rights as "self-evident". People, absent of any government, have the natural right to protect themselves, have the right to keep and bear arms (instruments or weapons of offense or defense). The government can't take away that natural right anymore than they can take away the self-evident right to breathe.
The theory of republican government (not political parties, mind you, but theories of structure in that the government is a "public matter" and not a private concern of the head of state), being a government of, by and for the people, the self-evident and natural rights must still apply. There were those who argued that some of these rights, especially those with a history of governments abusing or removing entirely, should be be made explicit in the Bill of Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding of republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. Turns out that was a very good idea.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
I must have missed the restrictions on certain guns in the Constitution. Take a look at Brazil, "Although Brazil has 110 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 50% more gun deaths;". Gun control is not the answer, figuring out what drives people to do things like this guy in CO is where we need to focus.
Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
zorry
Veteran Expediter
Hows Canada's murder rate? Their lifestyle is much closer to the US's than Mexico or Brazil.
Not being a gun guy I probably have my semantics all wrong. I guess my argument is we should limit magazine size/limit.
As far as the gun limitations in the constitution. I never took civics or government. Isn't the constitution supposed to be a guideline ? It could never have been meant to be all encompassing.
His guns killed in Colorado this week. His bombs hurt nobody. Pretty simple statement. We wouldn't be having this conversation if he'd been limited to his bombs.
Not being a gun guy I probably have my semantics all wrong. I guess my argument is we should limit magazine size/limit.
As far as the gun limitations in the constitution. I never took civics or government. Isn't the constitution supposed to be a guideline ? It could never have been meant to be all encompassing.
His guns killed in Colorado this week. His bombs hurt nobody. Pretty simple statement. We wouldn't be having this conversation if he'd been limited to his bombs.
Zorry seriously? That is the document our country is built on, h*-* no it is not just a guide line.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums
And you know this how?
paullud
Veteran Expediter
You may want to do some detailed research on the history of the US. You seem to be missing a key component as to why his bombs caused no injuries, he told the police about them. Do you think if he told the police that he was getting ready to go shoot up the theatre that his guns would have been an issue? If this guy had no guns at all he could've gone in throwing pipe bombs around to kill people since his intent was to commit an evil act, this guy is the problem not his guns.
Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
Interesting. What do you think "shall not be infringed" means?
Extremes of absurdity to make a logical fallacy straw man point won't get you very far. You have to use intelligence and reasoning and the rule of law. The rule of law in this case is twofold, the Constitution's explicitness of "shall not be infringed" and the common law as it applies.
When the Constitution was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, spears, and other hand weapons. This is the logical fallacy argument that some use to try and restrict arms today. However, the common-law (and reasonable and logical) definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare."
That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line.
The standard has to be (absolutely must be) that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.
Very well, actually. The US ranks 42 out of 125 as far as homicide rates, so that's not very good on the whole, but those with higher homicide rates, with 3 or 4 exceptions, have very strict gun laws, far stricter than we do, many of which outlaw gun ownership or possession outright. There are, of course, many countries with much lower homicide rates with stricter laws, as well, and lower rate with less restrictive gun laws. There is certainly a correlation between firearms and murder, since the majority of murders are committed with a firearm (before firearms were invented, and those who do not have access to firearms, the majority of murders are committed by something other than a firearm, though), but there is clearly no direct correlation between gun control laws and homicide, despite those who want to draw one on either side.
If you ask the average American which country has the highest murder rate, most will say without hesitation that we do. The power of mass media at work. The incessant drumbeat from the mainstream media and anti-gun groups serves to perpetuate the canard that the U.S. is the bloodiest free-fire zone on earth. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The US has a homicide rate of 5.0 per 100,000 population (most recent statistics, as confirmed by the FBI and the UN's "Demographic Yearbook"). Brazil, as was mentioned, has some very strict gun laws. All firearms in Brazil must be registered with the government. This registration process can take anywhere from 30 days to three months, but three months is the average. All civilian handguns are limited in caliber to no more than 9mm. All rifles must fire handgun ammunition only. Brazilians may only buy one gun per year. At any one time, they may only have in their possession a maximum of six guns: two handguns, two rifles and two shotguns. To transport their guns, citizens must obtain a special police permit. CCW permits are none have ever been issued. Because of these constraints, Brazil has a thriving black market for guns, whatever you want, for a price. The homicide rate for Brazil is 19. Nearly four times that of the US.
Fidel Casto well remembered the importance of guns when he overthrew the government, and thus gun ownership in Cuba is strictly controlled. The gun homicide rate in Cuba is 4.6. That's impressive considering no one is allowed to own firearms in Cuba.
In Mexico, the gun laws there can be described as Draconian, and to the delight of some, they restrict caliber. No civilian may own a gun larger than .22 caliber, and a permit is required to buy one. Permitting takes 6 months. All guns in Mexico are registered with the Ministry Of Defense. Guns may not be carried in public, either openly or concealed, ever. Carrying a single bullet can get you serious time in a Mexican prison, much to the delight of Mexican law enforcement officials whenever Americans visit. The US State Department estimates that at any given time, there are 80 Americans in a Mexican prison for minor gun crimes.
The homicide rate in Mexico? 15
The Bahamas has even stricter laws, and their homicide rate is 25. Guns are illegal in South Africa, who has a murder rate of 34. Same with Jamaica. Their rate is a cool 62 per 100,000.
A depressed student in Germany runs amok and kills several people in his school after he'd been expelled. Yes, it happens in other countries. In both France and Switzerland, angry individuals have stormed into local councils and began shooting legislators indiscriminately. You didn't hear about that? It was big news in France and Switzerland, though. The response from politicians and liberals? More restrictive gun laws, of course.
We've seen this show before. It's not new. It's tired, even. First, there is a horrible event, say a disturbed student shoots people in a school, or a maniac goes on a rampage in a movie theater. Media coverage is intense for a few weeks. "Experts" on television wring their hands in concern about the danger of "gun violence." The government feels it must do something to protect the public, so the police are given sweeping new powers, or new restrictions are introduced on owning firearms, many bearing the name of a victim of such violence. Afterwards, the media rush off on a new story, and the public forgets. Later, there is another tragedy somewhere else, and the process starts all over again.
Sound familiar? It should. This has been the pattern followed by virtually every gun law that has been introduced in the twentieth century around the world. In the 1990s, we've seen this drama on television from Australia, Great Britain, Canada, the United States, as well other countries. It's time to pause and ask a few basic questions. If gun laws work to prevent criminal violence, why do these events keep occurring? Good question. And not just in places where the gun laws are comparatively lax, but in countries where it is all but impossible for an average person to own a handgun. Guns are banned in schools. How could gun attacks happen in "gun free" zones such as schools? The mind boggles. How can this be?
If gun control is supposed to reduce violent crime, then eventually this must be demonstrated to be true, or gun control is no more than a feel-good, pat yourself on the back, hollow promise. Most criminologists admit (albeit reluctantly, because the data gives them no choice) that there is very little empirical support for the claim that laws designed to reduce general access to firearms reduce criminal violence. Frequently, assertions that gun laws work turn out to be bogus. In Canada, the government uses the falling homicide rate as support for their claim that gun control laws are working. Unfortunately for this argument, the homicide rate has been falling even faster in the United States. The suicide rate in Canada actually outpaces the homicide rate, not just the rate in Canada, but is higher than the murder rate in the US. What does that mean?
New gun laws in Canada have reduced the homicide rate by 25% over the last decade, but the violent crime rate has remained steady. Both the murder rate and the violent crime rate in the US has dropped 40% over the same period. Some people rejoice in hearing that gun laws have played an important role in reducing both homicides and violent crime in the US. That is, until they find out what those laws actually are.
Since 1986, more than 25 states have passed new laws encouraging responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. As a result, the numbers of armed Americans in malls and in their cars has grown to more than 3 million men and women. As surprising and disconcerting as it is to the media and to liberals in general, these new laws have caused violent crime rates to drop, including homicide rates. Violent crime has fallen faster in those states that have introduced concealed carry laws than in the rest of the US. Criminals are rational enough to fear being shot by armed civilians. That's also why step-#1 in Successful Tyranny for Dummies is "Disarm the citizenry".
One of these days someone will walk into a crowded theater and open fire, only to be met with, you know, open fire. It'll be interesting how the media covers that one.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
dupe, my bad...
Last edited:
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
there are over 60 million people that legally own guns in the US...and that number is closer to 65 million....how many of them use any of the over 250,000 million weapons in their possession to kill someone last week???
1 idiot goes nuts and we need MORE gun laws to CONTROL the law abiding...amazing...
As for why we "the people should need to own weapons, this kinda sayes it pretty well:
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
1 idiot goes nuts and we need MORE gun laws to CONTROL the law abiding...amazing...
As for why we "the people should need to own weapons, this kinda sayes it pretty well:
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
Last edited:
Lets slow down , just for a moment
Jessica Redfield: Woman Killed In Colorado Mass Shooting Had Blogged About Surviving Toronto Mall Shooting Last Month it is a tragic event for all the families .
Jessica Redfield: Woman Killed In Colorado Mass Shooting Had Blogged About Surviving Toronto Mall Shooting Last Month it is a tragic event for all the families .
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
paullud
Veteran Expediter
We all have way more than we need which would be the basics of food, water, and shelter. We are guaranteed things beyond that which our founding fathers saw as necessary.
Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums