Guns in America, Necessary for Freedom, Villainized by Media

1. Japan, France, and many other countries with strict gun laws have suicide rates greater than those that do not. The method changes from gun to falling, drug overdose, hanging, but rates stay consistent. For this reason, I think its ignorant and bias to use gun-related deaths rather than gun-related murders when developing arguments about gun regulation.

2. Murder in America is at a 52-year low

3. Small numbers have bigger variances, ie: 3 murders per 100,000 vs 6 murders per 100,000 gives the media the right to print "US Homicide Doubles Most Industrialized Nations" yet this is deceptive. The US is only 3 thousandths of a percent higher though double...

4. 13,400 murders by firearm equate to a 1/5% chance of dying by gun in your life, or a 1 in 25,000 chance this year, or a 1 in 8.5 Million chance on any given day. You already have a 33% chance of dying by disease. The chances are 1/3% you'll die on a plane, train, automobile, or be struck by one before getting murdered by a gun.

5. No country on the face of the planet has experienced more than a 5% drop in homicide rates as a result of banning firearms, and when looking at the overall rate of homicide decline world wide since 1950, theres no reliable correlation between a 5% drop and gun legislation. In fact, msny industrialized nations see increases, likely due to the fact that law abiding citizens are being disarmed, not criminals.

6. Rifles and long guns of any kind account for less than 8% of gun-related homicides. Of these, less than 4% are assault weapons.

7. Homicide by firearm has decreased nearly 20% since lifting the assault-style weapons ban in 2004.

8. The 2nd amendment exists to give the people the ability to challenge government, should its military be used by tyrants to take away our rights or liberty. The authors were opposed to a standing federal or state army, but knew no nation nor sovereignty could last without one. This being said, "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". It's actually the 9th amendment that gives Americans the right to defend themselves, their families, hunt, etc.

9. The supreme court Justice's duty is to interpret and apply the constitution to new laws, giving them legitimacy or nullification. A Justice who applies his or her own political values to their judgements has violated their duty, their oath, and the public trust. That being said, how can the 2nd amendment possibly be construed to deny citizens the armaments necessary to challenge government? How can any right be construed to give criminals power over law abiding citizens, or deprive citizens the ability to defend themselves or their family?

10. Freedom has a price. We can regulate and regulate and regulate freedoms until we're in a steel re-enforced bunker the rest of our lives, isollated from people snd secure from disease and violence and accidents and death, but what freedom loving American would want to live this way? Since when does the perception of security take precidence over freedom? Those who trade freedom for security will have neither.

The Point: There's no point in robbing Americans of their Guns, No basis, No right.

 

Well regulated militia is what is declared necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Liberals have failed with their gun control stance. Americans are not falling for it.

 

Gun lovers just need to make like bankers and claim relaxing the rules will lead to prosperity and domestic Tranquility when asking their elected representatives to trust that they will not simply be flakes with their Arms.

 

Questions and Answers based on Context:

What is a regulation?
To regulate, or a rule/law that defines how something should be performed.

What is a state?
A constituent unit of a nation having a federal government, organized under a political body of government, with a finite territory. (50 states)

What is a militia?
Civilians trained as soldiers, not part of the regular army.

What is a right?
The power, and authority to which one is justly entitled

What does it mean to infringe?
restrict an entitlement, encroach on one's authority, or to trespass

What does the bill of rights restrict in its context?
Government

Who does the bill of rights entitle in its context?
The People

Why was the bill of rights added?
To ensure the people expressly retain enumerated and existing rights.

Contradictions to Possible Definitions:

By word: A right that cannot be infringed by anything cannot also be a right that is regulated by government.

By definition: The power and authority in which the people are justly entitled, power and authority that cannot be infringed, encroached, or trespassed upon, cannot also be limited or regulated.

By context: The government and other entities cannot be both fully restricted from infringing on the rights of the people as well as granted complete authority to regulate the same rights entitled to the people; if so, it would not be a right, but a privilege.

:::::::: The 2nd amendment only has one way it can be interpreted ::::::::

The 2nd amendment first establishes that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. As this expression does not explicitly grant or restrict any rights, and only states that a militia is necessary, the expression acts as an "introductory parenthetical element" to a conjoining statement. The very definition of an introductory element, or parenthetical element, is that it can be removed without changing the meaning.It is the only context by which the expression can exist.

The right to bear arms is expressly a right granted to the people, therefore protected from trespass. A right is an entitlement. A regulated right is a privilege. The regulation is therefore a property of the necessary militia, which although necessary, is not expressly a right; the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, therefore; must not be regulated.

Regulated Un-Infringed Right = Impractical Conundrum

If it's regulated, it's infringed.

:::::::: What can be regulated? ::::::::::::::::

A right granted by the Bill of Rights to one individual cannot be also infringed by another Individual. Therefore, the people may be regulated in their right to carry firearms on private property based on the 4th and 9th amendment, which inherently grants a property-owner the authority to delegate conditions of access to his or her personal property on the basis of ownership, privacy, and security of person effects.

::::::::: What can't be regulated by congress? ::::::::

Every non-repealed right defined in the Bill of Rights to the scope which it is defined,
Nor any bill whose jurisdiction is not expressly granted to congress by the constitution.

Here are the limits of congress:

Article I of the Constitution sets forth most of the powers of Congress, which include numerous explicit powers enumerated in Section 8. Constitutional amendments have granted Congress additional powers. Congress also has implied powers derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. The Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, extended power of taxation to include income taxes.[1] The Constitution also grants Congress exclusively the power to appropriate funds. This power of the purse is one of Congress' primary checks on the executive branch. Other powers granted to Congress include the authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, and coin money. Generally both Senate and House have equal legislative authority although only the House may originate revenue bills and, by tradition, appropriation bills.

To extend the limits of congress to include the regulation of firearms, a 2/3 vote is required by both the House and the Senate, and 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment.

Example 1:
The 6th Amendment gives the people the right to the assistance counsel for defense. Nothing in the amendment states that this counsel must be a member of the American Bar Association. In fact, the ABA did not even exist until 1878. Yet, a court will not allow you to be represented by anyone who is not a member of the bar.

Example 2:
A jury is a body of people sworn to give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to them in court. The jury gives the verdict. The jury's responsibility is to take the role of a judge in matters of law; the highest of which retain the right to pass judgement based on the law's intended purpose and not the means by which it was inscribed. 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir. 1969) unanimously ruled that if a jury feels a law is unjust, it is their right to acquit and the court must abide by that decision. Truth is, it was not the courts decision to make. The fact that they did so the way they did is great. However, the courts to this day will not allow counsel to compel a jury to find a law unjust, and may dismiss or hold in contempt any jury member who compels other jury members to do so, and in most cases, may hold a jury member in contempt for exercising their right to nullification if they did not inform the court they were aware of that right prior to the commencement of trial (so they could be dismissed).

Let's look at the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, shall we?

There was strong opposition to the Bill of Rights because it enumerated rights; and that the enumeration of these rights would imply that if a right is not explicitly granted by the bill of rights, then it may be freely infringed by congress. This was not the design of the constitution, which stated that only powers granted to congress (through amendments) could be exercised by congress (by a 51% vote). Alexander Hamilton, one of the leading Federalists, made his concerns well known in "The Federalist No. 84".

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm

"...bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? ..."

The 9th amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to rescind the concerns of the Federalists; yet, the Supreme Court holds that they have no idea what rights the 9th amendment is referring.

All rights not enumerated! For crying out loud, really? You know why it was added but you don't know what it is referring? Seriously?

As it turns out, the Federalists had a right to be concerned, because anything not in the bill of rights is not a right, weather it was a right in 1789 or not. Congress continues to illegally pass and enforce bills that are not within their jurisdiction on the basis that no right explicitly exists limiting their ability to do so (which it does).

Nowhere in the constitution besides the 2nd amendment is the right to arms mentioned, nor the scope, and here we have the federal government affording a colorable pretext to claim more power than was granted. The only way the federal government can legally pass regulations on firearms is to first amend the constitution which requires a 2/3 vote of the house, 2/3 vote of the senate, and 3/4 of the states to ratify.

All current legislation is passed with a 51% vote, assuming the president does not veto.

 

nice wall of text. it is a Good thing our Founding Fathers did such an excellent job with our Constitution and supreme law of the land, at the convention. There is nothing ambiguous about our social Contract.

Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security (and presumably the domestic Tranquility as well) of a free State.

Thus, the unorganized militias of the People making like infidels, protestants, and renegades, may be Infringed by well regulated militias of the People, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It really is that simple, except the right.

 

1. Nothing in the 2nd amendment says anything about "militias of the people"
2. Nothing in the 2nd amendment says "unorganized militias of the people" have no rights
3. Nothing in the 2nd amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms are "for their State or Union."

The article clearly reads that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.

Any right or restriction not in the Bill of Rights passes first to the State, then to the people.

Nowhere in the constitution is congress, the supreme court, or the executive branch granted the right to regulate arms or pass regulations restricting the possession of arms. For the federal government to have the right to regulate arms, the powers of congress must be amended, or powers of the executive branch, or powers of the judicial branch. This requires a 2/3 vote of the house of representatives, 2/3 vote of the senate, and 3/4 ratification by the states. Not a 51% vote by the house and senate as such regulations are passed now, or as the supreme court would in some way malform the constitution's text to imply.

If a right read:

"A large house, being necessary to raise a large family, the right of the people to keep and buy land, shall not be infringed"

1. Would this mean that the right to own property is contingent on the building of a large house on it?
2. What if the person can't afford the time or money needed to build a house, can he/she buy the land in anticipation?
3. Can the land be passed as inheritance to his or her children?
4. What if his or her children do not have a large family, do they get to keep the house?
5. Does it have to be a house? Could it be an apartment? A duplex?

The answer is simple: The people have the right to buy and keep land. They can buy it and keep it as long as they want. It is their property, and that right cannot be infringed. If they choose to build a house, then great, thank god they had the right to buy and keep land or they couldn't.

Proof:
Nothing in the constitution states that any branch of government has power over private land, unless it is needed for a public purpose in which the owner will be justly compensated. In fact, if anything, it says people have the right to be secure in their possessions. Even if it didn't though, no branch of government is delegated the right to deny the purchase of land, no matter what the purpose, nor does the enumeration of the right itself suggest that they do.

Can congress obtain the right to regulate land?

You betcha. They need to amend the powers of congress under Article I section 8 of the US Constitution to read that congress shal have the authority to regulate the acquisition and ownership of land. It would require a 2/3 vote of the house, a 2/3 vote of the senate, and a 3/4 ratification of the states. Would this ever happen? No.

When some congressmen or interest group comes along and decides they need to be able to regulate the purchase and ownership of land, and convinces the other 50% of congress to pass a bill, it does not make it legitimate. It makes it illegitimate.

This is where The President either veto's the bill, or the Supreme Court rules against its legitimacy. When they fail to do this, despite their duty and affirmation of office, and instead exercise their personal beliefs or interests rather than the rule of law on the matter, they have committed a treason.

 

Daniel, try to keep up.

That Militia ship sailed in 2008.

 

Wow! What an educated OP.

 

'Regulated' in 1776,and even today, also means your firearm being able to hit point of aim. Perhaps the issue is that some are using today's meaning for regulated and not the meaning when the 2nd was written.

 

the People are the militia. only the right has a problem with it.

- - - Updated - - -

a simple error in reasoning.

there are no rights in private property secured in our federal Constitution, only Due Process.

- - - Updated - - -

nope. wellness of regulation has to be prescribed by our federal Congress. Article 1, Section 8.

 

Not only that, but the only way they are going to get law abiding American guns, is with the bullet. I'm not being sarcastic or joking. The day they try, will be the day they wished they didn't. And a dark and sinister day for everybody.

 

What's wonderful is knowing that, with certainty, those who defend their rights are in the right, and the moral compass will exist to resist.

 

An interesting point, at the time when the American constitution was written no nation had any restrictions on civilians having a firearm indeed the only negative of owning one was their cost.
Guns in the late 1700s were virtually hand made and expensive and way beyond the means of the common man. Also for the mass of the population guns were the last thing they needed to have even if they could afford to own one.
Their priorities were the life long struggle to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table to feed their large families.

Many Americans think that armed militias were formed after the War of Independence which is untrue, they were common practice long before and adopted by the British and other nations involved in the land grab of empire building.
The reason is very simple; there were never enough regular troops to defend the colony. At the start of the rebellion in 1776 the British troops numbered less that seven thousand and that number was never adequate to defend the colonies boarders which stretched for thousand’s of miles along the eastern seaboard and the quickest means of moving an army had in the 1700s was by foot.

Laws on the restrictions of gun ownership begun in European nations in the 20th century and the eventual very strict laws were due both in Britain and later in Australia by a dramatic watershed that gained overwhelming public support to ban guns almost completely from civilian ownership. The Dunblane school massacre in 1996 when 16 young children and their teacher were killed by a lone gunman was such a watershed that changed public opinion. Australia had a similar watershed later with the same result.
Many Europeans thought that the Sandy Hook massacre just maybe change public opinion in America but that only resulted in the sale of more guns.

 

Can anyone explain to me, in a cogent argument, why a law abiding and peaceful citizen should not own a gun?

 

Those with a firearm fetish, or those who merely feel insecure without one (or many) to fondle love their man-enhancers.

Keep shooties away from maniacs, drunks, and criminals, secure them from children, and there is no reason not to indulge them if they are "well-regulated" as the Second Amendment specifies.

​

God bless 'em, every one.

 

Except here in California.

 

Because they are scary and make a loud noise. And they can also unlock the prisons we keep them in called gun safes and can load and fire themselves.

 

I don't think it's reasonable to say that a lack of guns means less suicide. The two are unrelated. As for you assertion that gun related deaths should not be used at all, that's not entirely right. Some gun related deaths are relevant, such as our easy access to guns and the incidents of accidental shootings by children. Suicide may be a wash, sure, but there are other gun related deaths that I think are legitimate to consider.

What do guns have to do with this at all?

It's still double, so the reporting is accurate. They also print the stats above and most Americans should be able to conclude that while 6 per 100k is double 3 per 100k, it's still a relatively low rate compared to 100 per 100k. However what you fail to say is that countries with gun control stronger than ours have much lower rates of gun homicide, such as Australia with a 0.86 per 100k rate for example.

I agree with your stats, but now it is you that are being deceptive. Americans are in or near a car almost every day of their lives. The fact that the likelihood of death is higher is expected. Far fewer Americans are around or using guns in a daily basis.

This is a false conclusion. The idea that law abiding citizens being disarmed leads to more crimes against them is incorrect. The majority of gun crimes in America are criminal on criminal. Gang on gang violence over drugs drives it. There are very very few, less than the odds you listed above even, where Americans are randomly murdered by a bad guy with a gun. It's also rare that innocent bystanders are killed, though more so than the random bad guy example. Gun owners stopping homicides isn't easily tracked as those involved in the incident tend to over state their role in the prevention as witness testimony is unreliable, and it's impossible to say if they actually stopped a homicide given the intention criminal is only known to the criminal.

Homicide rates and gun ownership are not directly tied either direction. There are countries where gun ownership is minimal and crime is high, and vice versa.

Pistols are by far the type of gun to focus any sort of ban on if one is so inclined.

There is no strong statistic link to the assault weapon's ban and a decrease in homicides by firearm. The top 5 links that do have statistical validity are more police officers, better use of technology by the police, Americans are drinking less and there is a strong link between alcohol and violence of all kinds including firearm violence, reduction of lead which has a similar impact to alcohol, and a better economy. Whether or not people owning assault rifles has contributed to the decline is difficult to measure, but is likely a very very small segment of the reduction if any at all.

The 2nd amendment does no such thing. Ask George Washington, when citizens took up arms against the government, he put it down. Previously, when people took up arms in Massachusetts, it was one of the reasons we wrote our current constitution. There is zero evidence that our founders intended the 2nd Amendment to challenge the rule of law, zero. Jefferson, before you whip him out, was not among the mainstream thinkers of his day. This was a man who didn't believe in debt, largely because he didn't pay his own bills, and very little of what he believed you would actually agree with. The man for all his revolutionary words was pretty set in maintaining his status quo. And as president, he violated many of his younger day words and ideals with actions such as the Louisiana Purchase.

It's not meant to provide that. The 9th amendment was a political move, a reaction to federalists who said that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary and would lead people to think they only had the rights listed in the first 8. So Madison said there are fundamental rights not list in the first 8 that exist thus the 9th. But the right to self-defense already existed. You cannot deprive someone of their life without due process. That was enshrined in the body of the constitution, therefore, there is nothing further the 9th would add to it. You don't have a right to hunt, by the way, that's completely unjustifiable. The 9th amendment doesn't give people the right to do whatever they want. Hunting for example, is using a natural resource on lands that may or may not belong to you. Thus if you aren't the owners, you don't have the right to do it. Even if the owner is the federal or state government, it's still as much their property as yours is yours. Hence why your right to hunt isn't protected and you must obtain permission to do so.

You cannot interpret something without applying your own political values. Even so called "originalists" do this. That's why their rulings align with your held political beliefs, because they share them. You cannot challenge the government with the 2nd amendment because our government is based on a rule of law, not a rule of guns. If so, then warlords would rule the land. If someone with a gun could challenge the government over things they don't like, which is all it would ever be, then why have laws in the first place? Why not just let whomever has the most guns rule the land?

What you mean to say is living free comes with risk. Sure it does. Bunkers come in many forms. I've noticed that the people most worried and have the most guns are sometimes the most afraid. But that's their right and I don't look down upon them for it, I just go back to your statistic above about how worrying about being murdered or robbed should be, for the vast majority of Americans, a non-concern. Thus, there is little rational in ensuring one is constantly armed to deter a threat that is so incredibly unlikely.

If this is your point, then you are correct, Americans have a right to bear arms. However, not everything you said above is factually correct or properly concluded. And since no one in the government is robbing you of your guns, your point, while correct, seems like a non-issue.

 

No, there isn't a good argument. No more than there is a good argument to not find an effective way to keep non-law abiding, non-peaceful, or non-sound of mind citizens from owning guns. Which we currently don't have thanks to those who make the argument you make above.

 

We have laws against murder, we have laws against armed robbery, so I guess we need a law that says bad people can't own a gun.

 

This is what passes for reasoned, intelligent, discourse on the left.

 

If the citizenry remained armed, the state cannot have a monopoly on force!
How can the state have a monopoly on force, if the people citizenry remains armed?

 

Sure, but first, let’s ask you a few questions.

How many gun owners know and enforce the first rule of gun safety? 90%, 70% 50%-- Lower?

How many US children are hospitalized with gunshot wounds each day?

Do Daddy’s buy their six year old daughters guns in pretty colours?

Does the NRA run promotional adverts that specifically target children?

Is this ‘fake news’?
Between 2007 and 2011, an average
of 62 children age 14 and under died each year in
unintentional shootings.

 

Oh look! Fallacious appeals to emotion and ignorance, masquerading as an answer to the question!