CDZ We should charge 431.50 dollars in order to vote, people will then take it seriously...

[Montrovant]

No...I am not in a militia......and I support our Constitutional federal system of checks and balances between states and the Federal government.

Then you technically have no right to bear arms and you are paying for the privilege.

the Right to bear arms is not dependent on a militia......has never been part of our legal history........read Heller where they go through all of this...

I dont need to read Heller when I can just read the 2nd amendment. Basically the right of the people is contingent on the militia. Anyone understanding basic sentence structure can understand this.

"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."

If you are not a member of the militia/national guard you actually dont have a right to own a firearm.

The USSC disagrees.

That has no bearing on reading comprehension unless your claim is that the writers of the 2nd were illiterate.

Actually, I think that you are incorrectly comprehending the statement. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state is how I would describe the amendment. So, while it certainly is based on the idea of a well regulated militia, it does not implicitly say that only militia members can keep and bear arms.

I'm not saying the writers predicted what things would look like today, just that they didn't write the amendment in a way that required militia membership to own guns.

 

[Asclepias]

Then you technically have no right to bear arms and you are paying for the privilege.

the Right to bear arms is not dependent on a militia......has never been part of our legal history........read Heller where they go through all of this...

I dont need to read Heller when I can just read the 2nd amendment. Basically the right of the people is contingent on the militia. Anyone understanding basic sentence structure can understand this.

"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."

If you are not a member of the militia/national guard you actually dont have a right to own a firearm.

The USSC disagrees.

That has no bearing on reading comprehension unless your claim is that the writers of the 2nd were illiterate.

Actually, I think that you are incorrectly comprehending the statement. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state is how I would describe the amendment. So, while it certainly is based on the idea of a well regulated militia, it does not implicitly say that only militia members can keep and bear arms.

I'm not saying the writers predicted what things would look like today, just that they didn't write the amendment in a way that required militia membership to own guns.

I disagree for the reasons I pointed out earlier. The right specified in the second part of the sentence is contingent on the first part which is a "well regulated militia". Today that exists as our national guard. The thought is expressed as one thought not two separate thoughts. There is no period or even sentence structure to show that each thought stands on its own. Furthermore the the term "the people" is used instead of person or individual. .

 

[GaryDog]

People are always complaining that Americans don't understand what they are voting for and don't take voting seriously....so.....we should start charging 431.50 to vote in every election...that way only those people who are really serious about the fate of the country will actually vote...it will weed out the unserious, and the uninformed.....

Right?

Nope. Reeks of a poll tax. THAT will disenfranchise the poor and make it easier for the rich to control every aspect of our lives. On the other hand, I CAN see a simple civics test that has to passed to be able to vote. Too many morons who have no clue how the world works do indeed vote. I would also take away the right to vote for the dead. They have passed on, time to let the living do their duty.

Poll tax/literacy test-- both are plainly unconstitutional. Not sure why you see a distinction.

 

[GaryDog]

I dont need to read Heller when I can just read the 2nd amendment. Basically the right of the people is contingent on the militia.

"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."

And you would be wrong........the first 4 lines quoted show you are completely wrong......and it doesn't get better the more you read in Heller......you are wrong...the individual Right is well documented as legal Precedent long before the Constitution was even created....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

--------------

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

-----------

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.

The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

----------

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
----------


In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

-------------

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”


------------

That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

-------

As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”



-----------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

------------
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training
----
That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

----

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution
-------------
Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,”

----------

B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the


---------

1. Post-ratification Commentary Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 33 Opinion of the Court the Second Amendment in published writings. All three understood it to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service.

--------




c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

I'm right youre wrong.

If the right to bear arms was extended to the average wanna be john wayne, the amendment would have been worded differently. For starters it would have been a period instead of a comma separating the two ideas and the first part of the sentence would have been constructed as a complete thought. As I said before any 8th grade student can see that the first sentence cannot stand on its own.

2ndly the phrase "the people" meaning a group is used instead of the word "person" or "persons".

3rdly. The adjective "well regulated" used to describe the militia points at a trained force not some random joe blow that wants to play soldier boy.

From Heller.....


1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”


The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.

The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

----------

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

"The people" meaning a group of people representing a country or state. Not an individual.

Man, you are ignorant of both the English language, and the intentions of the Founders of this country. Here is what they had to say on the subject...

"This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army."



The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

You cite one "framer", George Mason.

LOL

 

[GaryDog]

Even left wing Ginsburg disagrees with you.....

From Heller...


In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

Thanks for posting that as an example of how to assign the right to a person. Note he didnt call a person "the people". he called them a person...twice

."upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’

Sorry....you missed it........Muscarello is not the Constitution.....that link shows that even in 1998 the concept of individual Right to bear arms was known and acknowledged....

Prior to 1998 it wasnt acknowledged. It was understood the right was only for the militia members.

If that were true they would already have been confiscated so once again, you are completely and totally wrong.

that is false. until scalia, it was generally accepted that there was no private right of gun ownership. in fact, previous justices laughed out loud at the idea

knowing that the right to own is as part of a "well-regulated militia" is not the same as wanting confiscation. that seems quite a large leap

BINGO /\/\/\/\

 

[Montrovant]

the Right to bear arms is not dependent on a militia......has never been part of our legal history........read Heller where they go through all of this...

I dont need to read Heller when I can just read the 2nd amendment. Basically the right of the people is contingent on the militia. Anyone understanding basic sentence structure can understand this.

"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."

If you are not a member of the militia/national guard you actually dont have a right to own a firearm.

The USSC disagrees.

That has no bearing on reading comprehension unless your claim is that the writers of the 2nd were illiterate.

Actually, I think that you are incorrectly comprehending the statement. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state is how I would describe the amendment. So, while it certainly is based on the idea of a well regulated militia, it does not implicitly say that only militia members can keep and bear arms.

I'm not saying the writers predicted what things would look like today, just that they didn't write the amendment in a way that required militia membership to own guns.

I disagree for the reasons I pointed out earlier. The right specified in the second part of the sentence is contingent on the first part which is a "well regulated militia". Today that exists as our national guard. The thought is expressed as one thought not two separate thoughts. There is no period or even sentence structure to show that each thought stands on its own. Furthermore the the term "the people" is used instead of person or individual. .

The thoughts are not separate, but neither is the right contingent on being part of the militia. Per the amendment, the right exists and shall not be infringed because a militia is necessary. That is different than saying the right exists as long as you are in the militia.

 

[Asclepias]

I dont need to read Heller when I can just read the 2nd amendment. Basically the right of the people is contingent on the militia. Anyone understanding basic sentence structure can understand this.

"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."

If you are not a member of the militia/national guard you actually dont have a right to own a firearm.

The USSC disagrees.

That has no bearing on reading comprehension unless your claim is that the writers of the 2nd were illiterate.

Actually, I think that you are incorrectly comprehending the statement. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state is how I would describe the amendment. So, while it certainly is based on the idea of a well regulated militia, it does not implicitly say that only militia members can keep and bear arms.

I'm not saying the writers predicted what things would look like today, just that they didn't write the amendment in a way that required militia membership to own guns.

I disagree for the reasons I pointed out earlier. The right specified in the second part of the sentence is contingent on the first part which is a "well regulated militia". Today that exists as our national guard. The thought is expressed as one thought not two separate thoughts. There is no period or even sentence structure to show that each thought stands on its own. Furthermore the the term "the people" is used instead of person or individual. .

The thoughts are not separate, but neither is the right contingent on being part of the militia. Per the amendment, the right exists and shall not be infringed because a militia is necessary. That is different than saying the right exists as long as you are in the militia.

thats a pretty novel interpretation of the 2nd. I may need to rethink this.

 

[jillian]

So we do a new Amendment...right...? And change that....

If a new amendment is created and ratified by the states, sure, that will change. I don't see it happening any time soon, but that's the way to make poll taxes legally acceptable if that is your goal.

as if the public would allow the white supremacists to do that.

funny thing is an awful lot of Donald's minions couldn't afford to pay that themselves.

that would leave college educated voters.

no GOP candidate would ever win again.

Only white supremacists would want a poll tax?

Only college educated voters can afford $431.50?

you see African American voters wanting a poll tax? it has always been a tool of white supremacists.

it isn't more likely that an educated person makes more than an uneducated person?

I don't see many people at all advocate a poll tax. I don't know the race or ethnicity of just about any of them.

It may be more likely that college educated people make more money, but that isn't what you said. In fact, you implied that only college educated voters, at least among Trump supporters, could afford to pay the $431.50 to vote.

that's because trump's demographic is largely people without college degrees. that may have shifted a bit but that's been true for the entire electoral season

 

[Montrovant]

If a new amendment is created and ratified by the states, sure, that will change. I don't see it happening any time soon, but that's the way to make poll taxes legally acceptable if that is your goal.

as if the public would allow the white supremacists to do that.

funny thing is an awful lot of Donald's minions couldn't afford to pay that themselves.

that would leave college educated voters.

no GOP candidate would ever win again.

Only white supremacists would want a poll tax?

Only college educated voters can afford $431.50?

you see African American voters wanting a poll tax? it has always been a tool of white supremacists.

it isn't more likely that an educated person makes more than an uneducated person?

I don't see many people at all advocate a poll tax. I don't know the race or ethnicity of just about any of them.

It may be more likely that college educated people make more money, but that isn't what you said. In fact, you implied that only college educated voters, at least among Trump supporters, could afford to pay the $431.50 to vote.

that's because trump's demographic is largely people without college degrees. that may have shifted a bit but that's been true for the entire electoral season

Even if Trump supporters were all people without college degrees, $431.50 isn't THAT much.

 

[Montrovant]

The USSC disagrees.

That has no bearing on reading comprehension unless your claim is that the writers of the 2nd were illiterate.

Actually, I think that you are incorrectly comprehending the statement. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state is how I would describe the amendment. So, while it certainly is based on the idea of a well regulated militia, it does not implicitly say that only militia members can keep and bear arms.

I'm not saying the writers predicted what things would look like today, just that they didn't write the amendment in a way that required militia membership to own guns.

I disagree for the reasons I pointed out earlier. The right specified in the second part of the sentence is contingent on the first part which is a "well regulated militia". Today that exists as our national guard. The thought is expressed as one thought not two separate thoughts. There is no period or even sentence structure to show that each thought stands on its own. Furthermore the the term "the people" is used instead of person or individual. .

The thoughts are not separate, but neither is the right contingent on being part of the militia. Per the amendment, the right exists and shall not be infringed because a militia is necessary. That is different than saying the right exists as long as you are in the militia.

thats a pretty novel interpretation of the 2nd. I may need to rethink this.

I would like to see the 2nd re-written for clarity.

One might argue that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state and therefore the second is invalid, I suppose.

 

[2aguy]

Even left wing Ginsburg disagrees with you.....

From Heller...


In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

Thanks for posting that as an example of how to assign the right to a person. Note he didnt call a person "the people". he called them a person...twice

."upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’

Sorry....you missed it........Muscarello is not the Constitution.....that link shows that even in 1998 the concept of individual Right to bear arms was known and acknowledged....

Prior to 1998 it wasnt acknowledged. It was understood the right was only for the militia members.

If that were true they would already have been confiscated so once again, you are completely and totally wrong.

that is false. until scalia, it was generally accepted that there was no private right of gun ownership. in fact, previous justices laughed out loud at the idea

knowing that the right to own is as part of a "well-regulated militia" is not the same as wanting confiscation. that seems quite a large leap

Wrong....Scalia cites the laws and common practices long before the Constitution was created and references the various laws that acknowledged an individual right...you have to actually read Heller and not just listen to whatever the anti gun activists tell you about Heller...I quoted Heller in an earlier post where the individual Right was identified several times......please...try to do some actual research before you post...

 

[2aguy]

These are actual studies....they have not been debunked over and over again....you simply saying you don't like the numbers all of these independent studies have found is not debunking them..........they were researched by trained research professionals in multiple fields of study......so you have no clue what you are saying....

Unfortunately, many of the links within the page do not work.

It seems like it could be a difficult statistic to accurately determine. That it happens at least in the hundreds of thousands seems like a good guess based on the little I looked at it, though.

It is difficult to determine, and the studies take the easy way out and just assume that anyone holding a gun at all has used it "defensively." It's a bogus, pro-gun study. Tainted as studies get.

There's definitely big gaps in methodology. What determines a DGU, is it based strictly on survey answers or something like FBI crime statistics, if it's a survey, what are the questions and how are they asked, what is the sample size, etc. etc.

Even the lowest estimates I've seen so far (I've been looking at it a bit, I'm curious) are at about 50,000 a year. The highest was, I think, 4.7 million a year. Somewhere in between, even if it's toward the lower end, seems reasonable to me.

The Kleck study gives the methodology......as does the clinton Department of Justice study.....

Where did you get the 50,000 a year?

A study by David Hemenway had an estimate of 55,000 a year.

I know it's Wiki, but here : Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can look at this article by Hemenway and a couple of other authors about the subject as well : http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

David Hemenway used the National Crime Victimization Survey to get that number....do you realize that the NCVS is not a defensive gun use survey....? Also, it does not actually use the word gun anywhere in the survey, and does not ask any direct questions about defensive gun use.....that is how he gets such a low number and why his number is the number anti gun activists frequently cite......

 

[2aguy]

These are actual studies....they have not been debunked over and over again....you simply saying you don't like the numbers all of these independent studies have found is not debunking them..........they were researched by trained research professionals in multiple fields of study......so you have no clue what you are saying....

Unfortunately, many of the links within the page do not work.

It seems like it could be a difficult statistic to accurately determine. That it happens at least in the hundreds of thousands seems like a good guess based on the little I looked at it, though.

It is difficult to determine, and the studies take the easy way out and just assume that anyone holding a gun at all has used it "defensively." It's a bogus, pro-gun study. Tainted as studies get.

There's definitely big gaps in methodology. What determines a DGU, is it based strictly on survey answers or something like FBI crime statistics, if it's a survey, what are the questions and how are they asked, what is the sample size, etc. etc.

Even the lowest estimates I've seen so far (I've been looking at it a bit, I'm curious) are at about 50,000 a year. The highest was, I think, 4.7 million a year. Somewhere in between, even if it's toward the lower end, seems reasonable to me.

The Kleck study gives the methodology......as does the clinton Department of Justice study.....

Where did you get the 50,000 a year?

A study by David Hemenway had an estimate of 55,000 a year.

I know it's Wiki, but here : Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can look at this article by Hemenway and a couple of other authors about the subject as well : http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

This is an analyisis of the National Crime Victimization Survey as it pertains to gun self defense by the DailyKos.....it is hardly a pro gun website...and they list why the NCVS is a bad way to understand defensive gun use....

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:

1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

 

[2aguy]

These are actual studies....they have not been debunked over and over again....you simply saying you don't like the numbers all of these independent studies have found is not debunking them..........they were researched by trained research professionals in multiple fields of study......so you have no clue what you are saying....

Unfortunately, many of the links within the page do not work.

It seems like it could be a difficult statistic to accurately determine. That it happens at least in the hundreds of thousands seems like a good guess based on the little I looked at it, though.

It is difficult to determine, and the studies take the easy way out and just assume that anyone holding a gun at all has used it "defensively." It's a bogus, pro-gun study. Tainted as studies get.

There's definitely big gaps in methodology. What determines a DGU, is it based strictly on survey answers or something like FBI crime statistics, if it's a survey, what are the questions and how are they asked, what is the sample size, etc. etc.

Even the lowest estimates I've seen so far (I've been looking at it a bit, I'm curious) are at about 50,000 a year. The highest was, I think, 4.7 million a year. Somewhere in between, even if it's toward the lower end, seems reasonable to me.

The Kleck study gives the methodology......as does the clinton Department of Justice study.....

Where did you get the 50,000 a year?

A study by David Hemenway had an estimate of 55,000 a year.

I know it's Wiki, but here : Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can look at this article by Hemenway and a couple of other authors about the subject as well : http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

And here is another look at why the NCVS is not a reliable tool for defensive gun use.....the study undercounts even the areas it is supposed to actually study and asks about directly.....

We’ve Been Measuring Rape All Wrong


National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do. But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault. And the FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........


But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault.

 

[2aguy]

the Right to bear arms is not dependent on a militia......has never been part of our legal history........read Heller where they go through all of this...

I dont need to read Heller when I can just read the 2nd amendment. Basically the right of the people is contingent on the militia. Anyone understanding basic sentence structure can understand this.

"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."

If you are not a member of the militia/national guard you actually dont have a right to own a firearm.

The USSC disagrees.

That has no bearing on reading comprehension unless your claim is that the writers of the 2nd were illiterate.

Actually, I think that you are incorrectly comprehending the statement. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state is how I would describe the amendment. So, while it certainly is based on the idea of a well regulated militia, it does not implicitly say that only militia members can keep and bear arms.

I'm not saying the writers predicted what things would look like today, just that they didn't write the amendment in a way that required militia membership to own guns.

I disagree for the reasons I pointed out earlier. The right specified in the second part of the sentence is contingent on the first part which is a "well regulated militia". Today that exists as our national guard. The thought is expressed as one thought not two separate thoughts. There is no period or even sentence structure to show that each thought stands on its own. Furthermore the the term "the people" is used instead of person or individual. .

Sorry....no one believes this outside of anti gunners.....

 

[2aguy]

These are actual studies....they have not been debunked over and over again....you simply saying you don't like the numbers all of these independent studies have found is not debunking them..........they were researched by trained research professionals in multiple fields of study......so you have no clue what you are saying....

Unfortunately, many of the links within the page do not work.

It seems like it could be a difficult statistic to accurately determine. That it happens at least in the hundreds of thousands seems like a good guess based on the little I looked at it, though.

It is difficult to determine, and the studies take the easy way out and just assume that anyone holding a gun at all has used it "defensively." It's a bogus, pro-gun study. Tainted as studies get.

There's definitely big gaps in methodology. What determines a DGU, is it based strictly on survey answers or something like FBI crime statistics, if it's a survey, what are the questions and how are they asked, what is the sample size, etc. etc.

Even the lowest estimates I've seen so far (I've been looking at it a bit, I'm curious) are at about 50,000 a year. The highest was, I think, 4.7 million a year. Somewhere in between, even if it's toward the lower end, seems reasonable to me.

The Kleck study gives the methodology......as does the clinton Department of Justice study.....

Where did you get the 50,000 a year?

A study by David Hemenway had an estimate of 55,000 a year.

I know it's Wiki, but here : Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can look at this article by Hemenway and a couple of other authors about the subject as well : http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

And here is the Dr. Gary Kleck explaining his research.......

Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US

 

[2aguy]

These are actual studies....they have not been debunked over and over again....you simply saying you don't like the numbers all of these independent studies have found is not debunking them..........they were researched by trained research professionals in multiple fields of study......so you have no clue what you are saying....

Unfortunately, many of the links within the page do not work.

It seems like it could be a difficult statistic to accurately determine. That it happens at least in the hundreds of thousands seems like a good guess based on the little I looked at it, though.

It is difficult to determine, and the studies take the easy way out and just assume that anyone holding a gun at all has used it "defensively." It's a bogus, pro-gun study. Tainted as studies get.

There's definitely big gaps in methodology. What determines a DGU, is it based strictly on survey answers or something like FBI crime statistics, if it's a survey, what are the questions and how are they asked, what is the sample size, etc. etc.

Even the lowest estimates I've seen so far (I've been looking at it a bit, I'm curious) are at about 50,000 a year. The highest was, I think, 4.7 million a year. Somewhere in between, even if it's toward the lower end, seems reasonable to me.

The Kleck study gives the methodology......as does the clinton Department of Justice study.....

Where did you get the 50,000 a year?

A study by David Hemenway had an estimate of 55,000 a year.

I know it's Wiki, but here : Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can look at this article by Hemenway and a couple of other authors about the subject as well : http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

And Here is Dr. Kleck discussing his work and other work, in particular the National Crime Victimization Survey....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

The one survey that is clearly not suitable for estimating the total number of defensive gun uses is the National Crime Victimization Survey. This is the only survey that has ever generated results implying an annual defensive-gun-use estimate under 700,000. Not surprisingly, it is a favorite of academic gun-control supporters. If one is to make even a pretense of empirically supporting the claim that defensive gun use is rare in America, one must rely on the National Crime Victimization Survey, warts and all.

That the National Crime Victimization Survey estimate is radically wrong is now beyond serious dispute. Ultimately, the only foundation one ever has for knowing that a measurement is wrong is that it is inconsistent with other measurements of the same phenomenon. There are now at least 15 other independent estimates of the frequency of defensive gun uses and every one of them is enormously larger than the National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate. Unanimity is rare in studies of crime, but this is one of those rare cases. Apparently, however, even unanimous and overwhelming evidence is not sufficient to dissuade the gun control advocacy organizations, such as Handgun Control, Inc., and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, that the National Crime Victimization Survey estimate is at least approximately valid and that defensive gun use is rare.

The numerous surveys yielding contrary estimates strongly support the view that the National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate is grossly erroneous.

There has probably been more outright dishonesty in addressing the issue of the frequency of defensive gun use than any other issue in the gun control debate. Faced with a huge body of evidence contradicting their low defensive-gun-use position, hard- core gun-control supporters have had little choice but to simply promote the unsuitable National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate and ignore or discount everything else. Authors writing in medical and public health journals are typically the most crudely dishonest--they simply withhold from their readers the very existence of a mountain of contradictory evidence.

 

[jillian]

as if the public would allow the white supremacists to do that.

funny thing is an awful lot of Donald's minions couldn't afford to pay that themselves.

that would leave college educated voters.

no GOP candidate would ever win again.

Only white supremacists would want a poll tax?

Only college educated voters can afford $431.50?

you see African American voters wanting a poll tax? it has always been a tool of white supremacists.

it isn't more likely that an educated person makes more than an uneducated person?

I don't see many people at all advocate a poll tax. I don't know the race or ethnicity of just about any of them.

It may be more likely that college educated people make more money, but that isn't what you said. In fact, you implied that only college educated voters, at least among Trump supporters, could afford to pay the $431.50 to vote.

that's because trump's demographic is largely people without college degrees. that may have shifted a bit but that's been true for the entire electoral season

Even if Trump supporters were all people without college degrees, $431.50 isn't THAT much.

To someone who can afford it.

 

[jillian]

Unfortunately, many of the links within the page do not work.

It seems like it could be a difficult statistic to accurately determine. That it happens at least in the hundreds of thousands seems like a good guess based on the little I looked at it, though.

It is difficult to determine, and the studies take the easy way out and just assume that anyone holding a gun at all has used it "defensively." It's a bogus, pro-gun study. Tainted as studies get.

There's definitely big gaps in methodology. What determines a DGU, is it based strictly on survey answers or something like FBI crime statistics, if it's a survey, what are the questions and how are they asked, what is the sample size, etc. etc.

Even the lowest estimates I've seen so far (I've been looking at it a bit, I'm curious) are at about 50,000 a year. The highest was, I think, 4.7 million a year. Somewhere in between, even if it's toward the lower end, seems reasonable to me.

The Kleck study gives the methodology......as does the clinton Department of Justice study.....

Where did you get the 50,000 a year?

A study by David Hemenway had an estimate of 55,000 a year.

I know it's Wiki, but here : Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can look at this article by Hemenway and a couple of other authors about the subject as well : http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

And here is the Dr. Gary Kleck explaining his research.......

Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US

Not so fast bubbalah

Contradictions of Kleck

 

[2aguy]

It is difficult to determine, and the studies take the easy way out and just assume that anyone holding a gun at all has used it "defensively." It's a bogus, pro-gun study. Tainted as studies get.

There's definitely big gaps in methodology. What determines a DGU, is it based strictly on survey answers or something like FBI crime statistics, if it's a survey, what are the questions and how are they asked, what is the sample size, etc. etc.

Even the lowest estimates I've seen so far (I've been looking at it a bit, I'm curious) are at about 50,000 a year. The highest was, I think, 4.7 million a year. Somewhere in between, even if it's toward the lower end, seems reasonable to me.

The Kleck study gives the methodology......as does the clinton Department of Justice study.....

Where did you get the 50,000 a year?

A study by David Hemenway had an estimate of 55,000 a year.

I know it's Wiki, but here : Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can look at this article by Hemenway and a couple of other authors about the subject as well : http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

And here is the Dr. Gary Kleck explaining his research.......

Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US

Not so fast bubbalah

Contradictions of Kleck

And if you read that you will see that Kleck addresses and debunks it.........and again....Kleck's work is not the only work...but he did get the most notice because his work came out as the states began pushing for concealed carry laws......and his work helped support that effort.....the funny thing....he was anti gun when he started his work.......