Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You're arguing against settled law.It doesn't because the Second Amendment isn't about the right to bear arms. Rather, it uses the right to bear arms as justification for forming regulated militias.That's all well and good, but it doesn't speak to gun control outside the regulation of the militia - in other words, the regulation related to the militia applies only to people in the militia and is therefore not gun control across all those that the the right to arms; further, nothing in the regulation of the militia in reference to firearms may infringe on the right to arms held by those people in the militia.Not just regulated militia units but forcing male citizens to join them, as seen in the Militia Acts. These, together with a small standing army and multiple threats (the threat of invasion, slave revolts, attacks by Native Americans, and attacks by fellow citizens) led to the need of such regulation.No. Its regulation of the militia.It's gun control because the manner by which it is implemented, i.e., the Militia Acts, forced all males of a certain age range to obtain firearms and receive training with militia units regulated by the government.This is an example of militia control, not gun control.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and so any attempt to conflate service in the militia with the right to keep and bear arms in unsound.
Related to, but separate from, gun control and not related to the right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and so any attempt to conflate service in the militia with the right to keep and bear arms in unsound. Period.
This is, of course, a lie.The instant the NRA was failing to make money they tarted signing deals with Military Weapons Manufacturers. I'm not judging, it simply happened.
Exactly as much as it is up to the people to decide what churches we should be allowed to go to and how often,It's up to THE PEOPLE what weapons we should be allowed to hold.
Gun control in Germany happened after World War 1 the nazis used that to arm their sa goons and keep the Jews and their enemies disarmed. Too many guns....yeah right...explain that to all the dead in those countries.....
Repost:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html
using raw data involving guns and violence as well as violence in general.
There are also other data sets and correlations to consider.
Finally, about the history of gun use and control in the U.S.:
The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.
The Secret History of Guns The Atlantic
On that Atlantic piece....
Left-leaning intelligentsia discover the secret history of guns
While Professor Winkler sees irony in the demographics of the pro-rights movement, and seems to have a hard time getting his head around the idea, we in the rights community have for years pointed out the problem with laws that invite police discretion over who should be “allowed” to own and carry guns. If the police are biased against a citizen based on ethnicity, cultural background, or they just don’t like an individual, then police discretion becomes a poor yardstick to use for judging a fundamental right – the right to self-defense. Martin Luther King’s house was bombed, but he was turned down for a concealed carry permit.
Read more at Left-leaning intelligentsia discover the secret history of guns
Repost:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html
using raw data involving guns and violence as well as violence in general.
There are also other data sets and correlations to consider.
Finally, about the history of gun use and control in the U.S.:
The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.
The Secret History of Guns The Atlantic
Well....Mr. Blow of course doesn't add in the 12 million murdered because the people of Europe were disarmed in the face of nazi occupation...or the 25 million of disarmed russians or the 70 million disarmed Chinese.....when their governments turned evil.....add those numbers into the equation and we come out really well.....
And besides....in a country of over 320 million people, we only have 8-9,000 gun murders a year....mainly committed by gangs in small, multi block areas of inner cities.....so our real gun murder rate compares very closely with that of Europe.....and he doesn't mention that Britain has 2 times the violent crime rate we have...after they banned guns...and that their gun murder rate was much smaller than ours before their gun ban....
guns aren't the problem....inner city culture is........now that Europe is importing different, more violent cultures into their cities...they will soon have our violent gun crime rate.......gun crime in all of these countries, including Canada and Australia is highest in the immigrant communities...as it is in Australia.......
and we use guns 1.6 million times a year to stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives....
Funny how Mr. Blow forgot to mention that side of the ledger....isn't it Ralfy.......
We don't have a gun problem...we have an inner city criminal culture and a law enforcement community that will not lock up criminals who use guns to commit crimes.......deal with those problems and our gun murder rate disappears.....
Right Ralfy.....?
Ralfy....here are some stats Mr. Blow didn't talk about....how many times guns are used to stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives....
I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC
And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....
A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense
GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys
Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
--------------------
Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000
Hell if no actions help anything then Why are there any laws in the first place?
Laws are written to create order (from chaos) among the law abiding citizenry, which consists of most people. Laws are written to create a uniform code and expectations in commerce and trade, etc. So long as those laws are just (not violating your natural unalienable rights), they will be followed --- happily.
However, a law written to create order among those prefer chaos (criminals) is ineffectual, and only hinders the law abiding. Also, lawyers and politicians are aware of this, therefore they know their gun control laws are useless and incapable of solving the problem they pretend to be attempting to solve. It's a pretense to disarm the citizenry that's been ongoing since 1946, after the Battle of Athens, Tennessee.
So let me throw the question back at you now:
Why not write a law that bans murder, wouldn't that solve the problem?
Is someone suggesting that gun laws will eliminate all gun violence? Whoops! Strawman shot down just like that.
You are fun to expose because you don't know the definition of strawman. What you are stating is that laws don't work all the time. Everyone knows this is true yet you think you are smart. Are you trying to state no laws will create no unlawful behavior? <--The Derp is REAL!
The politicians state openly that the bills are written to disarm criminals.
No law should ever be written with the intent of governing criminals, because they live outside the law (outlaws). Only the law-abiding citizenry will be disarmed by laws.
You're arguing against settled law.It doesn't because the Second Amendment isn't about the right to bear arms. Rather, it uses the right to bear arms as justification for forming regulated militias.That's all well and good, but it doesn't speak to gun control outside the regulation of the militia - in other words, the regulation related to the militia applies only to people in the militia and is therefore not gun control across all those that the the right to arms; further, nothing in the regulation of the militia in reference to firearms may infringe on the right to arms held by those people in the militia.Not just regulated militia units but forcing male citizens to join them, as seen in the Militia Acts. These, together with a small standing army and multiple threats (the threat of invasion, slave revolts, attacks by Native Americans, and attacks by fellow citizens) led to the need of such regulation.No. Its regulation of the militia.It's gun control because the manner by which it is implemented, i.e., the Militia Acts, forced all males of a certain age range to obtain firearms and receive training with militia units regulated by the government.
Related to, but separate from, gun control and not related to the right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and so any attempt to conflate service in the militia with the right to keep and bear arms in unsound. Period.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and so any attempt to conflate service in the militia with the right to keep and bear arms in unsound.
Period.
Hell if no actions help anything then Why are there any laws in the first place?
Laws are written to create order (from chaos) among the law abiding citizenry, which consists of most people. Laws are written to create a uniform code and expectations in commerce and trade, etc. So long as those laws are just (not violating your natural unalienable rights), they will be followed --- happily.
However, a law written to create order among those prefer chaos (criminals) is ineffectual, and only hinders the law abiding. Also, lawyers and politicians are aware of this, therefore they know their gun control laws are useless and incapable of solving the problem they pretend to be attempting to solve. It's a pretense to disarm the citizenry that's been ongoing since 1946, after the Battle of Athens, Tennessee.
So let me throw the question back at you now:
Why not write a law that bans murder, wouldn't that solve the problem?
Is someone suggesting that gun laws will eliminate all gun violence? Whoops! Strawman shot down just like that.
You are fun to expose because you don't know the definition of strawman. What you are stating is that laws don't work all the time. Everyone knows this is true yet you think you are smart. Are you trying to state no laws will create no unlawful behavior? <--The Derp is REAL!
The politicians state openly that the bills are written to disarm criminals.
No law should ever be written with the intent of governing criminals, because they live outside the law (outlaws). Only the law-abiding citizenry will be disarmed by laws.
Gun control doesn't necessarily involve disarming citizens.
For example, the Second, which served to force male, adult citizens to acquire weapons and receive training, is actually a form of gun control.
Finally, gun control doesn't violate "settled law" because all natural rights may be abridged for one reason or another through LEGISLATURE.
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by
man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.
"It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges
are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves
to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this
power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the
exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of
English liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnond, 1789.
"If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point
of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may
be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and
fact." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.[/quote[
So long as that "abridgement" does not infringe on the right.Finally, gun control doesn't violate "settled law" because all natural rights may be abridged for one reason or another through legislature.
Laws are written to create order (from chaos) among the law abiding citizenry, which consists of most people. Laws are written to create a uniform code and expectations in commerce and trade, etc. So long as those laws are just (not violating your natural unalienable rights), they will be followed --- happily.
However, a law written to create order among those prefer chaos (criminals) is ineffectual, and only hinders the law abiding. Also, lawyers and politicians are aware of this, therefore they know their gun control laws are useless and incapable of solving the problem they pretend to be attempting to solve. It's a pretense to disarm the citizenry that's been ongoing since 1946, after the Battle of Athens, Tennessee.
So let me throw the question back at you now:
Why not write a law that bans murder, wouldn't that solve the problem?
Is someone suggesting that gun laws will eliminate all gun violence? Whoops! Strawman shot down just like that.
You are fun to expose because you don't know the definition of strawman. What you are stating is that laws don't work all the time. Everyone knows this is true yet you think you are smart. Are you trying to state no laws will create no unlawful behavior? <--The Derp is REAL!
The politicians state openly that the bills are written to disarm criminals.
No law should ever be written with the intent of governing criminals, because they live outside the law (outlaws). Only the law-abiding citizenry will be disarmed by laws.
Gun control doesn't necessarily involve disarming citizens.
For example, the Second, which served to force male, adult citizens to acquire weapons and receive training, is actually a form of gun control.
Define Gun Control.
Laws are written to create order (from chaos) among the law abiding citizenry, which consists of most people. Laws are written to create a uniform code and expectations in commerce and trade, etc. So long as those laws are just (not violating your natural unalienable rights), they will be followed --- happily.
However, a law written to create order among those prefer chaos (criminals) is ineffectual, and only hinders the law abiding. Also, lawyers and politicians are aware of this, therefore they know their gun control laws are useless and incapable of solving the problem they pretend to be attempting to solve. It's a pretense to disarm the citizenry that's been ongoing since 1946, after the Battle of Athens, Tennessee.
So let me throw the question back at you now:
Why not write a law that bans murder, wouldn't that solve the problem?
Is someone suggesting that gun laws will eliminate all gun violence? Whoops! Strawman shot down just like that.
You are fun to expose because you don't know the definition of strawman. What you are stating is that laws don't work all the time. Everyone knows this is true yet you think you are smart. Are you trying to state no laws will create no unlawful behavior? <--The Derp is REAL!
The politicians state openly that the bills are written to disarm criminals.
No law should ever be written with the intent of governing criminals, because they live outside the law (outlaws). Only the law-abiding citizenry will be disarmed by laws.
Gun control doesn't necessarily involve disarming citizens.
For example, the Second, which served to force male, adult citizens to acquire weapons and receive training, is actually a form of gun control.
Define Gun Control.
Finally, gun control doesn't violate "settled law" because all natural rights may be abridged for one reason or another through LEGISLATURE.
Wrong you dumb ****. They can only be abridged through DUE PROCESS and a JURY OF YOUR PEERS convicts you.
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW... SHALL NOT INFRINGE ... NO WARRANT SHALL ISSUE ... TRIAL BY JURY ...
And check the Ninth Amendment.
I think Thomas Jefferson personally addressed this to ralfy
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by
man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.
"It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges
are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves
to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this
power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the
exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of
English liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnond, 1789.
"If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point
of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may
be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and
fact." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.[/quote[
So long as that "abridgement" does not infringe on the right.Finally, gun control doesn't violate "settled law" because all natural rights may be abridged for one reason or another through legislature.
