Should Gun Ownership Be Mandatory?

[Doktor Avalanche]

He is, apparently successfully, trolling the shit out of you.

Either direction taken, I fully approve simply for the laughs.

All lolitics is laughable today because humanity has been stupid enough to still vote or follow.

 

Has anyone in the US ever considered that the continued voting for the lesser evil is what brought about this current election?

[LordRahl2]

You are mistaken there. Voters usually really really believe in their their team.

 

Dont be fooled by the partisan bickering most of the time. 95% of the time candidates are exceptable rational people (exceptions like B. Goldwater do exist).

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Ok. How do you interpret it? 

 

My interpretation is that it is a very old and vague statement. It's talking about militias, whereas the US has moved beyond militias ages ago. If I were in charge, I would interpret it as allowing civilians to own guns which would be stored in caches, only to be opened during the event of war. I am sure you don't share it, and that's OK.

 

Theoretically, yes. And the 21st can be repealed, effectively enacting the 18th. We all know how well that worked out. 

 

I have no clue about that, but it is irrelevant. We are not talking about political feasibility. We are talking about what ought to be.

 

As posted earlier ITT, a psycho doesn’t really need guns to kill people in large numbers. The Oklahoma City bomber used a homemade fertilizer bomb. The 9-11 killers used boxcutters and jets. The Happy Land murder only used gasoline and a lighter to take out 87 people. The 2015 Las Vegas car murderer used a car to drive up onto the sidewalk on the Strip, mowing people down. It’s unhelpful and dangerous to focus too narrowly just on the tool used (gun, bomb, gas) and overlook or downplay the primary problem in these situation, which is the murderer.

 

That's one of the common fallacies of all pro-gun people. If a psycho doesn't *need* guns to kill people, neither do *you* need guns to stop the psychos. You can use a homemade fertilizer bombs, boxcutters, jets, knives and cars to stop the murderers. So if we restrict access to guns, it wouldn't reduce your capability of stopping the psycho! Congratulations!

 

Of course, your argument is wrong. Guns are not *necessary* to commit crimes, but boy, do they make it much easier. Suppose you are a mad husband who want to kill his cheating wife. Problem: she lives in a condo. It's a bit hard to drive your car up to the 30th floor. Shit. What about a knife? Well, you could kill her with a knife, but she would probably have a lot of time to scream before she is dead, so the neighbors will hear and call a cop. Damn, this killing and getting away with it has become a little harder. Maybe you shouldn't murder your wife.

 

Disclaimer: No wives were murdered to produce this comment, xdxd.

 

What exactly do you have in mind? “Regulated†could mean a lot of things. Every time a gun control supporter gives specifics about what they mean by that exactly, it turns out to be an idea that is anything but ways to stop a shooter. 

 

The median level of gun control in EU is perfectly fine with me.

 

Just so we are on the same page, you are implying that if a criminal can't get a firearm, they won't commit the crime with a different weapon? If not, you should look at criminal violence in general. On that note, European nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. For example, Russia, where only 3 in 100 people own a gun, has a murder rate of about 20 people per 100,000, whereas Finland, where 39 in 100 own guns, has a murder rate of only 2 per 100,000.

In 2004, The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. The panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns. The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control. 

http://www.wnd.com/2004/12/28253/

 

Don't come to me with shitty cross-country comparisons; the variables not accounted for in such analysis are immense. No one takes cross-country analyses seriously anymore, as you can get whatever results you like by changing the set of control variables or the countries included in the analysis. Comparable data across countries is extremely hard to come by on top.

 

Who said I liked guns for only recreation? They are also viable for defense purposes. The Center for Disease Control, in a 2013 study commissioned by President Obama, estimated that defensive gun uses number between several hundred thousand and several million per year in the U.S. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals. http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

 

Call the !@#$ing police.

[WISD0MTREE]

One day, we will overthrow the federal government and enslave the liberals and communists to work on farms to feed our righteous Christian army. Hillary Clinton is part of the evil communists. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are both too liberal to lead our great nation, they do not have a vision for true conservatism!  

That's some low quality bait. On the topic of revolutions, the Battle of Athens is a pretty good historical example of the value of the 2nd Amendment in fighting tyrannical authority. This was a rebellion led by armed citizens in McMinn County, Tennessee. against local government in 1946, against what was essentially political corruption and voter intimidation. As one of the rebels said at the time, “The principles that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county.†There was also the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921. For five days in late August and early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers who were backed by coal mine operators during an attempt by the miners to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired, and the United States Army intervened by presidential order.

 

My interpretation is that it is a very old and vague statement. It's talking about militias, whereas the US has moved beyond militias ages ago. If I were in charge, I would interpret it as allowing civilians to own guns which would be stored in caches, only to be opened during the event of war. I am sure you don't share it, and that's OK.

 

I have no clue about that [Prohibition], but it is irrelevant. We are not talking about political feasibility. We are talking about what ought to be.

 

That's one of the common fallacies of all pro-gun people. If a psycho doesn't *need* guns to kill people, neither do *you* need guns to stop the psychos. You can use a homemade fertilizer bombs, boxcutters, jets, knives and cars to stop the murderers. So if we restrict access to guns, it wouldn't reduce your capability of stopping the psycho! Congratulations!

 

Of course, your argument is wrong. Guns are not *necessary* to commit crimes, but boy, do they make it much easier. Suppose you are a mad husband who want to kill his cheating wife. Problem: she lives in a condo. It's a bit hard to drive your car up to the 30th floor. Shit. What about a knife? Well, you could kill her with a knife, but she would probably have a lot of time to scream before she is dead, so the neighbors will hear and call a cop. Damn, this killing and getting away with it has become a little harder. Maybe you shouldn't murder your wife.

Disclaimer: No wives were murdered to produce this comment, xdxd.

 

The median level of gun control in EU is perfectly fine with me.

 

Don't come to me with shitty cross-country comparisons; the variables not accounted for in such analysis are immense. No one takes cross-country analyses seriously anymore, as you can get whatever results you like by changing the set of control variables or the countries included in the analysis. Comparable data across countries is extremely hard to come by on top.

 

Call the !@#$ police.

Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:

The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia. The National Guard, however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.

The reserve militia are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the “unorganized militia†per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code. 

 

You should maybe read the document which our government is based off of. It's really not that long. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Let me give you a hint. 

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

 

Are you suggesting people start using a fertilizer bomb vest to stop a rapist? Obviously, a rape whistle is no defense against a determined attacker, particularly if no one is willing to come to your aid. We need to keep in mind the “bystander effect,†where individuals inexplicably don’t come to the aid of any one person who needs it. Guns are effectively an equalizer. (From earlier ITT) It means that a 95 pound woman has the ability to fight off a 210 pound assailant, that a 13 year old girl can keep her 7 year old brother safe from two robbers, it keeps the LGBT community from being bashed, and it maintains the ability for everyone to vote. The Second Amendment is there for all of us. It does not care about color, creed, sexuality, religion (or the lack thereof), your wealth, health, class, or home. It doesn't choose sides. Why would you want to take that freedom away? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

 

Alright, suppose I'm a mad husband and want to kill my cheating wife. I walk in, stab her, walk out in under 10 minutes. Congratulations, I most likely got out even if the neighbors called the police. I probably got caught by cameras, however. (And the fact that she was cheating. The husband is always a suspect then.)

Or

I walk in, shoot her, walk out in under 10 minutes.

Or

I act cool and take her into the subway (I'm assuming this is an urban area because there aren't many condos in the countryside.). There, I "accidentally" push her in front of a subway train or onto the the third rail. 

Or

I, statistically being larger than her, throw her out of the window. 

What's the difference? 

 

Despite having a very high rate of private gun ownership, Switzerland has very little gun violence. Swiss gun homicides stood at 0.2389 per 100,000 residents in 2010 despite the fact that they are third in the world in terms of numbers of firearms owned by private individuals. This figure is among the lowest in the world. It has less to do with the availability of the guns and more to do with the culture and values of the people using them.

At the end of the day, it's really about how much you want to give up to be "safe." 

Do you want to emulate a country where the only legal form of self-defense is a rape whistle? https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm

Do you want to emulate a country where you have to be 18 to buy kitchen knives? https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knivesand https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BytBNt7_gHw4Q1NxcW5BREM3ekU/view?usp=sharing 

 

Alright, fair enough. However, that last part was only in the US, not international. 

 

Actually, did you know that, according to the courts, the police are under no Constitutional obligation to keep you safe? See Warren vs. District of Columbia. The court ruled, “The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.†In a more recent case, the Manhattan Supreme Court ruled that the city of New York could not be sued after NYPD officers failed to stop a man from being brutally stabbed on a subway, even though the officers were present when the attack occurred. The court again found that the police had “no special duty†to protect citizens as individuals. And even though that majority of the time they do respond, they often have a response time in the tens of minutes or even hours, for rural areas. By then, the police are only there to clean up the mess afterward. 

Edited September 9, 2016 by WISD0MTREE

[Kemal Ergenekon]

1) Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:

The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia. The National Guard, however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.

The reserve militia are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the “unorganized militia†per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code. 

 

You should maybe read the document which our government is based off of. It's really not that long. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Let me give you a hint. 

 

2) Are you suggesting people start using a fertilizer bomb vest to stop a rapist? Obviously, a rape whistle is no defense against a determined attacker, particularly if no one is willing to come to your aid. We need to keep in mind the “bystander effect,†where individuals inexplicably don’t come to the aid of any one person who needs it. Guns are effectively an equalizer. (From earlier ITT) It means that a 95 pound woman has the ability to fight off a 210 pound assailant, that a 13 year old girl can keep her 7 year old brother safe from two robbers, it keeps the LGBT community from being bashed, and it maintains the ability for everyone to vote. The Second Amendment is there for all of us. It does not care about color, creed, sexuality, religion (or the lack thereof), your wealth, health, class, or home. It doesn't choose sides. Why would you want to take that freedom away? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

 

Alright, suppose I'm a mad husband and want to kill my cheating wife. I walk in, stab her, walk out in under 10 minutes. Congratulations, I most likely got out even if the neighbors called the police. I probably got caught by cameras, however. (And the fact that she was cheating. The husband is always a suspect then.)

Or

I walk in, shoot her, walk out in under 10 minutes.

Or

I act cool and take her into the subway (I'm assuming this is an urban area because there aren't many condos in the countryside.). There, I "accidentally" push her in front of a subway train or onto the the third rail. 

Or

I, statistically being larger than her, throw her out of the window. 

What's the difference? 

 

3) Despite having a very high rate of private gun ownership, Switzerland has very little gun violence. Swiss gun homicides stood at 0.2389 per 100,000 residents in 2010 despite the fact that they are third in the world in terms of numbers of firearms owned by private individuals. This figure is among the lowest in the world. It has less to do with the availability of the guns and more to do with the culture and values of the people using them.

At the end of the day, it's really about how much you want to give up to be "safe." 

Do you want to emulate a country where the only legal form of self-defense is a rape whistle? https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm

Do you want to emulate a country where you have to be 18 to buy kitchen knives? https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knivesand https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BytBNt7_gHw4Q1NxcW5BREM3ekU/view?usp=sharing 

 

4) Alright, fair enough. However, that last part was only in the US, not international. 

 

5) Actually, did you know that, according to the courts, the police are under no Constitutional obligation to keep you safe? See Warren vs. District of Columbia. The court ruled, “The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.†In a more recent case, the Manhattan Supreme Court ruled that the city of New York could not be sued after NYPD officers failed to stop a man from being brutally stabbed on a subway, even though the officers were present when the attack occurred. The court again found that the police had “no special duty†to protect citizens as individuals. And even though that majority of the time they do respond, they often have a response time in the tens of minutes or even hours, for rural areas. By then, the police are only there to clean up the mess afterward. 

 

1) Really not interested. The militias serve no purpose when the country has the most powerful army on Earth. They are a relic of the past appropriated by crazies. Also not interested in what the constitution says since I don't view it as sacred. If it serves the well-being of the society, it can -- and should -- be changed.

 

2) No, I am just showing you that your argument was a shitty one. Guns are efficient tools with which to kill people. Guns make killing easier. Guns make killing someone and getting away easier. Guns let you kill many more people than you can do with other more mundane methods. That's what tools do: make what they are designed to do easier. Take the guns away, and you take away the ease with which to kill. That reduces -- you guessed it -- killings. I would take the freedom away which might prevent 100 deaths if by doing so I prevent 10000 deaths. If it's a calculus of death, the anti-gun camp wins.

 

3) Switzerland is civilized and well-off enough to still operate with that many guns. The US cannot. Unless you have a magic wand that will change the US into Switzerland, I couldn't give less !@#$.

 

4) The last part from the US is some funny shit. You cannot do such a study when I can carry a gun from one area to another without any measures to prevent it. It's an exercise in futility, and any social scientist who knows how to do empirical research would laugh those guys out of the room.

 

5) That sounds !@#$ed up. They should face a prison sentence if they fail to do their duty. Another law that needs to change, that's for sure.

[Doktor Avalanche]

You are mistaken there. Voters usually really really believe in their their team.

 

Dont be fooled by the partisan bickering most of the time. 95% of the time candidates are exceptable rational people (exceptions like B. Goldwater do exist).

The partisan bickering has existed since the foundations of parliamentary government. It has simply reached a milestone in this election due to the amount of media coverage which has expanded far and wide in the last 50 years. The absurdity is there in every election cycle, along with the population who finds it more absurd each election. The internet and the media only make it easier to see.

[LordRahl2]

Your post implied that this election had brought us to uniquely bad candidates.  It may have brought us to one uniquely bad and another who is worse than normal (but still fits in the band of qualified and competent) but not to some irreconcilable place.

 

-Just how I read your post.  I may have missed tone or something.

[WISD0MTREE]

1) Really not interested. The militias serve no purpose when the country has the most powerful army on Earth. They are a relic of the past appropriated by crazies.

 

Also not interested in what the constitution says since I don't view it as sacred.

 

If it serves the well-being of the society, it can -- and should -- be changed.

 

2) No, I am just showing you that your argument was a shitty one. Guns are efficient tools with which to kill people. Guns make killing easier. Guns make killing someone and getting away easier. Guns let you kill many more people than you can do with other more mundane methods. That's what tools do: make what they are designed to do easier. Take the guns away, and you take away the ease with which to kill. That reduces -- you guessed it -- killings. I would take the freedom away which might prevent 100 deaths if by doing so I prevent 10000 deaths. If it's a calculus of death, the anti-gun camp wins.

 

3) Switzerland is civilized and well-off enough to still operate with that many guns. The US cannot. Unless you have a magic wand that will change the US into Switzerland, I couldn't give less !@#$.

 

4) The last part from the US is some funny shit. You cannot do such a study when I can carry a gun from one area to another without any measures to prevent it. It's an exercise in futility, and any social scientist who knows how to do empirical research would laugh those guys out of the room.

 

5) That sounds !@#$ed up. They should face a prison sentence if they fail to do their duty. Another law that needs to change, that's for sure.

Let’s back up. I think you’re missing the point. It doesn't say, “...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,†it says the right of the people. Just like all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, not dependent upon membership in any militia. This is what the Supreme Court said when they ruled that it was an individual not a collective right. You should read the Federalist Papers to see exactly what the Framers of the Bill of Rights were thinking when they created the Bill of Rights. 

 

As Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said in 2013: "Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem [of terrorism]. One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that [...] Ask yourself: If [the Westgate Mall Massacre in Nairobi] was Denver, Colorado, if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly? [...] What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, 'Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?' This is something that has to be discussed." 

(Source for context: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341 )

 

Being 100% honest, I didn't believe that there were really a lot of Americans who couldn't pass the naturalization test. Now I'm kind of questioning myself about that. 

 

All of the above is in reply to the first line. 

---

Just what has changed so much from then to now to make you think it’s no longer relevant? Do people no longer try to control other people? Are there no more wars? Do we no longer have the right to defend ourselves? You never hear anyone say, “‘All men are created equal’ made sense in 1776 but not anymore.†

 

It is changed somewhat often. It was last changed on May 7, 1992. What do you think the word "amendment" means? 

 

I know how much you hate international studies, but it's the only time where we can get any sort of data to prove one way or another. According to the United Nations, the U.K. is 4th in the world in total crimes per capita, whereas the U.S. is only 22nd. I mean, hell, I can guarantee you almost 90 percent safety if you just let me control your life. You’ll have to give up most all your civil liberties in doing so. China used to go so far at to limit the number of kids a family can have in order to engineer a desired society. The Arab states don’t allow any alcohol. The American-style of individual freedom inherently assumes risk. 

 

And what makes you think that you can just use a magic wand to remove our gun heritage? 

 

It's not regulated at a federal level, but it surely is regulated at the state level. Off the top of my head (not legal advice): 

CA- Any firearm which is classified as an "assault weapon" can't be carried within the state without notifying the local police of every town you pass through. CA's classification of assault weapon is very strict. AFAIK, any weapon with a removable magazine can only have 1 assault-y feature. (Those being adjustable stocks, forward grips, or pistol grips.) Bullet buttons no longer make it not-detachable.  

MA- Fairly sure you need a permit. 

NY- You must follow all state restrictions for passing through the state (or obviously moving into). They have very restrictive magazine limits, so you're screwed if you use what was sold with the gun. New York City requires a New York City handgun license or a special permit from the city police commissioner validating a state license within the city. Even New York state licenses are generally not valid within New York City. 

DC- You must prove that you are going to/from an event where you need the gun to transport in/through. 

I'm sure I'm missing some. I hear Hawaii is particularly bad in that sense. If you are saying these laws don't stop people from moving weapons across borders, what makes you think that a law banning/restricting guns will stop criminals from obtaining them? 

 

Yes. 

[LordRahl2]

Since neither of you have quoted the bloody thing...it reads:

 

"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."

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Thanks Rahl.

 

If it were just "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," I would agree with Wisdomtree's interpretation. But:

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," -> this shows that the right was justified by the necessity of a well-regulated militia, which was to ensure the security of a free State.

 

The US military ensures the security of all free States. The militias are no longer necessary. They are a relic of the past times when the US didn't have the professional army of today.

[Dillon A McCann]

Is this actually a serious thread? MAKE a 11 year old carry a gun with them and give them ]lessons on it. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

In reply to the UK crime number example: That's a prime example as to why cross country studies are dangerous. What is the magnitude and the severity of those crimes? What were the criteria in calling events crimes? Since violent deaths per capita in the UK is much lower, I would have a hard time believing actual number of crimes, weighted by their severity, would be higher in the UK.

 

I have no magic wand to make your gun love go away, but the state has the force to make you give up your weapons whether you like it or not. Your preferences are not forces of nature. They can be ignored if the country wishes to do so.

 

State level regulation is largely a joke. Can I go to other states, but a weapon, sneak it into the "regulated" state without any checks, and use it for any nefarious purpose I see fit? Yes. How high are transportation costs between states? Very low. Hence those regulations are expected to be ineffective.

 

What makes me think banning/restricting guns will prevent criminals from obtaining them: Obvious, isn't it? If you pass the regulations at the federal level, there are two sources left: smuggled weapons, and weapons that the government cannot collect after the regulation. The first one can be fought by border security. The second one will be discouraged by extremely harsh sentences upon discovery of an unregulated weapon.

 

Would this be perfect? Of course not. There will always be some guns. But they will be much more scarce, so (1) they will cost much much more to obtain (2) they will only be obtainable in the black market, and those who lack the connections will not be able to easily purchase one even if they have the money, (3) carrying one will be extremely dangerous even if you don't use it. 

 

In effect, this would make guns, the tools for killing people, much harder and costlier to obtain. Therefore this will lead to a reduction in violent deaths due to guns. Not completely, but significantly.

[LordRahl2]

Thanks Rahl.

 

If it were just "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," I would agree with Wisdomtree's interpretation. But:

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," -> this shows that the right was justified by the necessity of a well-regulated militia, which was to ensure the security of a free State.

 

The US military ensures the security of all free States. The militias are no longer necessary. They are a relic of the past times when the US didn't have the professional army of today.

 

The Supreme Court basically agreed with you for 200+ years

 

For example:

United States v. Cruikshank - http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/92/542.html

United States v. Miller - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

 

That changed in 2008 with:

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

 

The Supreme Court basically agreed with you for 200+ years

 

For example:

United States v. Cruikshank - http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/92/542.html

United States v. Miller - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

 

That changed in 2008 with:

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

 

 

 

Great minds think alike, xdxd.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Thanks Rahl.

 

If it were just "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," I would agree with Wisdomtree's interpretation. But:

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," -> this shows that the right was justified by the necessity of a well-regulated militia, which was to ensure the security of a free State.

 

The US military ensures the security of all free States. The militias are no longer necessary. They are a relic of the past times when the US didn't have the professional army of today.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

 

We must remember that the foundation for the United States was never to have a large standing army, unlike Europe. Therefore the intention of an armed society was viewed with a new and enterprising concept when the document was set into motion. However...

 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

It was more than just to secure a free state. The original intention was to not create a standing army like the kingdoms of Europe had at the time. Unfortunately it only took a couple decades afterwards to change that tune.

[WISD0MTREE]

Is this actually a serious thread? MAKE a 11 year old carry a gun with them and give them ]lessons on it.

Nobody has taken OP seriously.

Disclaimer: I don't agree with OP.

 

If it were just "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," I would agree with Wisdomtree's interpretation. But: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," -> this shows that the right was justified by the necessity of a well-regulated militia, which was to ensure the security of a free State. The US military ensures the security of all free States. The militias are no longer necessary. They are a relic of the past times when the US didn't have the professional army of today.

There is a new need for a kind of armed civilian militia in the United States. Specifically, it protects us in a way that traditional armies cannot; from (at least some) acts of terrorism. Now, I’m not going to argue that an an armed citizenry can prevent every attack of terrorism. It’s pretty difficult to anticipate a sudden bomb attack, for instance. However, unlike places like France in which we’ve seen horrendous acts of terrorism in recent years, where private citizens are not permitted the means to protect themselves, an armed populace means that the United States overall presents hard, not soft, targets to terrorists. Why do you think 90% of all shootings have happened in gun free zones? 

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

Again, I know how much you hate international studies, but gun confiscation has never really been tried in America. Look at France. Sure, they have less shootings, but they tend to have a higher body count. 

http://crimeresearch.org/2016/01/france-suffered-more-casualties-murders-and-injuries-from-mass-public-shootings-in-2015-than-the-us-has-suffered-during-obamas-entire-presidency-508-to-424-2/

 

In reply to the UK crime number example: That's a prime example as to why cross country studies are dangerous. What is the magnitude and the severity of those crimes? What were the criteria in calling events crimes? Since violent deaths per capita in the UK is much lower, I would have a hard time believing actual number of crimes, weighted by their severity, would be higher in the UK.

 

I have no magic wand to make your gun love go away, but the state has the force to make you give up your weapons whether you like it or not. Your preferences are not forces of nature. They can be ignored if the country wishes to do so.

 

State level regulation is largely a joke. Can I go to other states, but a weapon, sneak it into the "regulated" state without any checks, and use it for any nefarious purpose I see fit? Yes. How high are transportation costs between states? Very low. Hence those regulations are expected to be ineffective.

 

What makes me think banning/restricting guns will prevent criminals from obtaining them: Obvious, isn't it? If you pass the regulations at the federal level, there are two sources left: smuggled weapons, and weapons that the government cannot collect after the regulation. The first one can be fought by border security. The second one will be discouraged by extremely harsh sentences upon discovery of an unregulated weapon.

 

Would this be perfect? Of course not. There will always be some guns. But they will be much more scarce, so (1) they will cost much much more to obtain (2) they will only be obtainable in the black market, and those who lack the connections will not be able to easily purchase one even if they have the money, (3) carrying one will be extremely dangerous even if you don't use it. 

 

In effect, this would make guns, the tools for killing people, much harder and costlier to obtain. Therefore this will lead to a reduction in violent deaths due to guns. Not completely, but significantly.

Obviously there is a knife problem, or people wouldn't move to regulate it. You don't hear about American police going on weapon sweeps and returning with bike tires. 

 

 

"Your" meaning me or all gun owners? Well, over half of the country doesn't. We have around 350 million guns in the U.S. Let’s be totally over-optimistic and say you can get rid of 10,000 a day. That’s going to take 96 years. Good luck. 

 

You do realize that we border a state which is practically one step away from anarchy? 

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/10/isil-vs-mexican-drugcartelsunitedstatesislamophobia.html

And around 11 million people have crossed and stayed? Many more have probably brought across drugs. We ban guns here, the cartels can easily bring more over. 

 

Can you name a prohibition that has actually worked in the US? Drugs? Alcohol? Online gambling? Again, we have around 350 million guns in the U.S. Let’s be totally over-optimistic and say you can get rid of 10,000 a day. That’s going to take 96 years. Good luck. 

 

Again, we have around 350 million guns in the U.S. Let’s be totally over-optimistic and say you can get rid of 10,000 a day. That’s going to take 96 years. Good luck. There is, assuredly, work to be done on this front. We need a better mental health system (and a better cultural understanding of and approach to mental health disorders). We also need to ruthlessly prosecute straw buyers, corrupt firearm dealers and other criminals that traffic and profit in the illegal gun trade. But as the majority of recent elections shows us, the one thing most Americans are not willing to do is be bullied by dishonest fear mongering gun control groups that can only spread its message by peddling falsehoods. 

 

And an increase in other ways to murder. 

 

Serious question here. Can you pass this? https://my.uscis.gov/prep/test/civics

Edited September 10, 2016 by WISD0MTREE

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Civics test: 20/20

 

Not sharing your interpretation of the amendments to the constitution does not make me a savage, TYVM.

 

I don't share your views on militia preventing terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks kill much less than American-on-American gun violence anyway.

 

When you outlaw some shit, people will come and hand in the weapons themselves. Especially if you offer generous buy-back prices. Those that remain will be less than what currently exists. In a few decades, the number would be comparable to other developed nations which have sane gun laws.

 

Get the number for other years in France, and you will see that it's a one time occurrence due to ISIS and the refugee crisis. Cherry-picking at its finest. It's like picking 2001 for terrorism deaths in the US (which is huge thanks to 9/11).

 

Making fun of tires and knives does not change the fact that guns are one of the most efficient tools of killing that common people have access to.

[Caecus]

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

 

We must remember that the foundation for the United States was never to have a large standing army, unlike Europe. Therefore the intention of an armed society was viewed with a new and enterprising concept when the document was set into motion. However...

 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

It was more than just to secure a free state. The original intention was to not create a standing army like the kingdoms of Europe had at the time. Unfortunately it only took a couple decades afterwards to change that tune.

 

What is, in your view, the logical purpose of these quotes? Why did these people insist armed citizens? Besides a natural love of guns. 

[Doktor Avalanche]

What is, in your view, the logical purpose of these quotes? Why did these people insist armed citizens? Besides a natural love of guns. 

These people were establishing a nation set on the integral need for an armed society whose original intent was to not require a large standing force as was witnessed being abusive in Europe by Monarchs and Emperors killing off its citizenry for generations. America was founded on a great experiment which would not allow a tyrannical empire from abusing its citizens, hence the "love of guns" as a line of defense.

[Landontom]

Uhhh no, not everyone likes guns, I do, but not everyone.

 

I hold the same opinion on abortions, if you don't like them, don't get them, but don't take someones elses right to do so.

[WISD0MTREE]

Civics test: 20/20 Not sharing your interpretation of the amendments to the constitution does not make me a savage, TYVM.

 

I don't share your views on militia preventing terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks kill much less than American-on-American gun violence anyway.

 

When you outlaw some shit, people will come and hand in the weapons themselves. Especially if you offer generous buy-back prices. Those that remain will be less than what currently exists. In a few decades, the number would be comparable to other developed nations which have sane gun laws.

 

Get the number for other years in France, and you will see that it's a one time occurrence due to ISIS and the refugee crisis. Cherry-picking at its finest. It's like picking 2001 for terrorism deaths in the US (which is huge thanks to 9/11).

 

Making fun of tires and knives does not change the fact that guns are one of the most efficient tools of killing that common people have access to.

You didn't know what the 18th amendment was earlier. 

The historical evidence is clear. With almost no exceptions, mass shooters select a target-rich environment where they have a very low if not non-existent probability of being confronted with armed resistance during the initial phases of the incident. Further, these incidents typically end in one of three ways when the shooter is confronted with any armed resistance. These are suicide (most common), a shootout with the armed resistance (very uncommon) or total capitulation (extremely rare). In all of these circumstances the danger to the innocent victims ends instantly as the shooter narrows their focus to the armed threat. It makes no difference if the armed resistance is from private security, a private citizen or law enforcement. 

How about I ask you this question: Would you attempt to attack a gun show? A shooting range? An ISIS camp? How about a military base?

Or what about a school? Brady Campaign rally? Coffee shop in Paris? A bar (illegal to carry in a bar in most states)? 

 

I'm assuming you are thinking of one similar to Australia's. It wasn’t a “buyback,†it was mandatory confiscation. Call it what it is. Australia confiscated 600,000 guns. Americans have 350,000,000 guns. That’s 583 times the number. It would require 583 times the effort and money. Even if you gave only $100 back for each gun for each mandatory buyback, that is 35 billion dollars right there. And most guns are worth a lot more than that. (Just for scale, my M1A and Benelli Ethos are about $1,999.99 each.) Where is that billions of dollars going to come from? Where is the money going to come from to organize such a massive, national effort? Your taxes? Really, the jury is still out that the Australian firearm confiscation did anything to reduce firearm homicide rates or suicide rates there. Here is an interesting paper you should be aware of from the University of Melbourne. Let’s just look at the summary: “The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.†http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee%20and%20Suardi%202008.pdf

Here’s another such study, this one using New Zealand as a control: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854. From the summary: “The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia.â€

"But cross-country studies are bad!!1!uno!!1"

You were the one who said the number of guns in America would be similar to those of other developed countries with stricter laws. What makes you think you can safely make that comparison when apparently millions of people in the US refuse to turn in guns? 

 

#NotAllMuslims

#NotAllResponsibleGunOwners

 

If by "efficient" you mean "inefficient", then yes. Again, a psycho doesn’t really need guns to kill people in large numbers. The Oklahoma City bomber used a homemade fertilizer bomb. The 9-11 killers used boxcutters and jets. The Happy Land murder only used gasoline and a lighter to take out 87 people. The 2015 Las Vegas car murderer used a car to drive up onto the sidewalk on the Strip, mowing people down. It’s unhelpful and dangerous to focus too narrowly just on the tool used (gun, bomb, gas) and overlook or downplay the primary problem in these situation, which is the murderer. The worse school mass killing in U.S. history, the Bath school massacre, wasn’t done with guns at all, but with a pickup truck full of explosives? 38 kids and 6 adults were murdered. Let’s not fool ourselves, and let’s not lose focus, the guns are not the primary root cause here. It’s sick, twisted, evil people who are hell-bent on doing harm. 

 

Just so we are clear, are you for a total ban, or more restrictions? 

Edited September 11, 2016 by WISD0MTREE

[Kemal Ergenekon]

You are just repeating yourself instead of bringing in new arguments, so it became boring for me. I will provide short answers to sate your curiosity:

 

You didn't know what the 18th amendment was earlier. 

 

So what, do you have all amendments memorized, ffs?

 

The historical evidence is clear. With almost no exceptions, mass shooters select a target-rich environment where they have a very low if not non-existent probability of being confronted with armed resistance during the initial phases of the incident. Further, these incidents typically end in one of three ways when the shooter is confronted with any armed resistance. These are suicide (most common), a shootout with the armed resistance (very uncommon) or total capitulation (extremely rare). In all of these circumstances the danger to the innocent victims ends instantly as the shooter narrows their focus to the armed threat. It makes no difference if the armed resistance is from private security, a private citizen or law enforcement. 

How about I ask you this question: Would you attempt to attack a gun show? A shooting range? An ISIS camp? How about a military base?

Or what about a school? Brady Campaign rally? Coffee shop in Paris? A bar (illegal to carry in a bar in most states)? 

 

This is literally undermining your own argument. Currently there are few restrictions on guns, but let's get rid of them too. The shooters will still choose locations where they will face little resistance. That directly implies that arming the populace isn't the solution, because the shooters will not pick random locations, but actually the locations that are not protected. Those locations will always exist: The old grandma who cannot see 5 feet in front of her would do jackshit with a gun. Neither would you when you are returning from work, dead tired, and ambushed from behind. The shooter will always have the initiative as well: With guns, the person who draws first wins. The assailant chooses the time and place of engagement, so the assailant will always win except in cases he cannot factor in the random guy walking by. You just destroyed your own position mate.

 

I'm assuming you are thinking of one similar to Australia's. It wasn’t a “buyback,†it was mandatory confiscation. Call it what it is.

 

Yes, mandatory confiscation with some money given back for fairness (the guns cost money after all) and to give more incentives not to hide.

 

 Australia confiscated 600,000 guns. Americans have 350,000,000 guns. That’s 583 times the number. It would require 583 times the effort and money. Even if you gave only $100 back for each gun for each mandatory buyback, that is 35 billion dollars right there. And most guns are worth a lot more than that. (Just for scale, my M1A and Benelli Ethos are about $1,999.99 each.) Where is that billions of dollars going to come from? Where is the money going to come from to organize such a massive, national effort? Your taxes?

 

Do you think that's a large cost for getting rid of all the guns from the US for all time? That's just 5% of the yearly defense budget, and less than 1% of the yearly federal budget. It's tiny.

 

Really, the jury is still out that the Australian firearm confiscation did anything to reduce firearm homicide rates or suicide rates there. Here is an interesting paper you should be aware of from the University of Melbourne. Let’s just look at the summary: “The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.†http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee%20and%20Suardi%202008.pdf

Here’s another such study, this one using New Zealand as a control: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854. From the summary: “The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia.†"But cross-country studies are bad!!1!uno!!1"

 

Literally the abstract states: "The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."

 

The abstract says that the results can be one way or the other depending on the methodology you employ. So it admits the no large effects result relies on the particular funky methodology they chose to employ. That means the evidence is inconclusive.

 

The latter paper is cross country and just focusing on a very small probability event on top. When even the US has as few as 160 shootings, doing the analysis for the much smaller country of New Zealand is foolish.

 

You were the one who said the number of guns in America would be similar to those of other developed countries with stricter laws. What makes you think you can safely make that comparison when apparently millions of people in the US refuse to turn in guns? 

 

Ahahaha, I want to see those gun lunatics try to resist when the Army comes knocking.

 

#NotAllMuslims

#NotAllResponsibleGunOwners

 

If by "efficient" you mean "inefficient", then yes. Again, a psycho doesn’t really need guns to kill people in large numbers. The Oklahoma City bomber used a homemade fertilizer bomb. The 9-11 killers used boxcutters and jets. The Happy Land murder only used gasoline and a lighter to take out 87 people. The 2015 Las Vegas car murderer used a car to drive up onto the sidewalk on the Strip, mowing people down. It’s unhelpful and dangerous to focus too narrowly just on the tool used (gun, bomb, gas) and overlook or downplay the primary problem in these situation, which is the murderer. The worse school mass killing in U.S. history, the Bath school massacre, wasn’t done with guns at all, but with a pickup truck full of explosives? 38 kids and 6 adults were murdered. Let’s not fool ourselves, and let’s not lose focus, the guns are not the primary root cause here. It’s sick, twisted, evil people who are hell-bent on doing harm. 

 

We already discussed this stupid line of reasoning. Guns are tools that make killing easier. If they aren't, you don't need them either. If they are, making them harder to obtain makes killing harder. Simple as that.

 

Just so we are clear, are you for a total ban, or more restrictions? 

 

I wouldn't mind total ban, but I am good with more restrictions and regulations, or even a huge price increase with very high VAT.

 

If there was the technology where each gun could immediately be traced to its owner and had some sort of built in GPS, and only responding to owners' commands or sth, I would be much more bullish on guns. That would make killing someone with a gun and getting away with it much harder, so their illegal use could be prevented.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Kemal Ergenekon

[Caecus]

These people were establishing a nation set on the integral need for an armed society whose original intent was to not require a large standing force as was witnessed being abusive in Europe by Monarchs and Emperors killing off its citizenry for generations. America was founded on a great experiment which would not allow a tyrannical empire from abusing its citizens, hence the "love of guns" as a line of defense.

 

I have no doubt in my mind that each and every one of the founding fathers viewed European (mostly British) society as corrupt and without virtue. And I have no doubt in my mind that the common man, assembled into a militia, was the hastati to defend republican virtue. I think you are citing a Jeffersonian ideal of a morally good republic. 

 

If you are a true anti-federalist and Jeffersonian who believes that the common citizen-soldier is the foundation of a virtuous republic, then you are, statistically speaking, most likely a walking contradiction. As a Jeffersonian, you would believe that industry and products of the industrial revolution are items of corruption, and that true virtuous citizens of a health republic is a farmer who gains strength from toiling in the land. You would be opposed to a professional standing military and believe that the republic can only be truly defended by patriot citizen-soldiers with private arms. You would be for free trade and for the importation of manufactured goods made outside of the US and would not antagonize China or India for those resources. You would be for the expansion of the middle class to have more citizens capable of purchasing private arms to bulk the body of the citizen soldier republic. 

 

If you are a true anti-federalist and Jeffersonian, then you would be in agreement with my plan. You would want to stamp out the corrupt and festering industry. You would want to neuter the federal government's power where wealthy elites, who enrich themselves and care nothing for the greater good, are removed from power and "reeducated" in republican virtue. You would want our children to be taught at a young age the concept of civic virtue, and not be corrupted by technologies which soften the body and mind. You would want brave citizen soldiers with their own arms to defend our nation out of civic virtue, not a professional standing army with no concept of what it means to toil in the fields. You would want our nation's most wealthy, such as Bill Gates or Donald Trump, to purchase their own weapons and take the field of battle for the republic. 

 

Surely if we view the second amendment in the framework of the exact ideology our founding fathers had envisioned, we would all agree that it is not being applied today. Is my plan truly such a far-fetched idea without the idealism of our 300 year-old patrens patriae?  

[Doktor Avalanche]

I have no doubt in my mind that each and every one of the founding fathers viewed European (mostly British) society as corrupt and without virtue. And I have no doubt in my mind that the common man, assembled into a militia, was the hastati to defend republican virtue. I think you are citing a Jeffersonian ideal of a morally good republic. 

 

If you are a true anti-federalist and Jeffersonian who believes that the common citizen-soldier is the foundation of a virtuous republic, then you are, statistically speaking, most likely a walking contradiction. As a Jeffersonian, you would believe that industry and products of the industrial revolution are items of corruption, and that true virtuous citizens of a health republic is a farmer who gains strength from toiling in the land. You would be opposed to a professional standing military and believe that the republic can only be truly defended by patriot citizen-soldiers with private arms. You would be for free trade and for the importation of manufactured goods made outside of the US and would not antagonize China or India for those resources. You would be for the expansion of the middle class to have more citizens capable of purchasing private arms to bulk the body of the citizen soldier republic. 

 

If you are a true anti-federalist and Jeffersonian, then you would be in agreement with my plan. You would want to stamp out the corrupt and festering industry. You would want to neuter the federal government's power where wealthy elites, who enrich themselves and care nothing for the greater good, are removed from power and "reeducated" in republican virtue. You would want our children to be taught at a young age the concept of civic virtue, and not be corrupted by technologies which soften the body and mind. You would want brave citizen soldiers with their own arms to defend our nation out of civic virtue, not a professional standing army with no concept of what it means to toil in the fields. You would want our nation's most wealthy, such as Bill Gates or Donald Trump, to purchase their own weapons and take the field of battle for the republic. 

 

Surely if we view the second amendment in the framework of the exact ideology our founding fathers had envisioned, we would all agree that it is not being applied today. Is my plan truly such a far-fetched idea without the idealism of our 300 year-old patrens patriae?  

Amazing how you assume much of my view as a Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist of which I have not made any mention. I only quoted what some of the Founding Fathers were documented as stating to place into the conversation. Many of the Founding Fathers I think were horrible, as much of what this nation was founded upon was also horrible. You forget I am a half-breed who does not stand firm on the foundation of this "Great Experiment", as it included the destruction of my people. However I have no issue with an armed society, as it is having an armed society that guaranteed my people the ability to survive into the 21st Century against impossible odds.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Lo Pan

[Caecus]

Amazing how you assume much of my view as a Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist of which I have not made any mention. I only quoted what some of the Founding Fathers were documented as stating to place into the conversation. Many of the Founding Fathers I think were horrible, as much of what this nation was founded upon was also horrible. You forget I am a half-breed who does not stand firm on the foundation of this "Great Experiment", as it included the destruction of my people. However I have no issue with an armed society, as it is having an armed society that guaranteed my people the ability to survive into the 21st Century against impossible odds.

 

If that's the case, then you would still be in favor of my plan. The overthrow of the federal government via a Spartan militia. An armed society does nothing if the armed society is incompetent. Too much of our holders of private arms are soft, old, untrained and uneducated fat men who arrogantly think that they could conduct war in an effective fashion. 

 

A truly effective armed society, one that retains its autonomy against an oppressive world system (be it terrorism or a shadow government), is one that demands of citizens at a young age to be taught civic humanism and trained in both body and mind to overcome enemies who may have better arms and equipment than the private holder of arms! If my son, with his AR-15, was faced against the federal government's M1 Abrams MBT, he is going to need all the training and physical strength to overcome those odds. If my son was a fat incompetent and lived at home playing video games all day and thought to himself that all he needed was a pull of a trigger to stop our enemies, he is stupid and deserves to be blown up by a tank when the federal government starts rolling down our streets.