Not sure why you posted your comments twice — I guess it was for emphasis?
Before I even saw your posts, Samir and 2os had already replied to them. And, I couldn’t have replied better myself.
Their replies touch all the bases. There’s really nothing more that needs to be added.
Hello Samir,
I’m sure Brian knows what naïveté is, but apparently the Babypips spell-checker thinks [I]naïveté[/I] is not a real word.
But, then, the spell-checker thinks [I]forex[/I] is not a real word, either. Silly spell-checker!
Hello 2os,
Your point is key, and well stated.
In countless, real-life situations every day, the only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun — and that’s an inconvenient fact that the Obama Sock-Puppet Media will never report.
Apologies for the erroneous double post, I will delete one when I get a second at work. I have not had the chance yet to check out some of the information that was provided, but I will.
I will say that I spent my twenties and the first half of my thirties as a conservative. I understand the arguments to some degree. Gun rights I’ve always understood less then other issues. I’ve also never fired one and have never needed one for protection, so my point of view is based on some degree of inexperience. I don’t think my view will change, but anything is possible.
In response to your earlier post, I suggested that Samir and os2 had said all that needed to be said, and therefore I had nothing to add. However, I want to backtrack on that position, and address specifically the question you asked about the founding fathers.
Let me address the “militia” thing first, because it establishes the context for your question about the intent of the founders.
I assume that you’re referring to the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and its reference to “a well regulated militia”. Here is the exact language of the Amendment:
“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.”
The punctuation and capitalization in the above quote is exactly as it was written in 1791.
There has been a lot of debate through the years about what the founding fathers meant by a “well regulated militia”. Most historians agree that they were not referring to a national military force, or to the militia (what we would call the National Guard) of any state. Rather, they agree that the founders were referring to armed civilians, “regulated” by the laws of their states, and prepared to defend the Republic against a future tyrannical government run amok.
At the risk of sounding like I’m picking on you, I need to take exception to your phrase 'organized militia", which seems to reinforce the misconception that the founders were talking about a state militia, or a national army. Instead of that, I believe that the founders were describing individual, private citizens who are armed and law-abiding (well regulated).
In support of this view of the founders’ intent, let me quote four of them:
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” - George Washington
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” - Thomas Jefferson
“To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” - George Mason
I didn’t research those quotes myself. Along with the text of the Second Amendment, those four quotes comprise a set of plaques, titled “Quotes of the Founding Fathers Five Piece Set”, offered for sale in the National Rifle Association’s current NRAstore catalog.
In their advertising, the NRA does not cite the source documents for the founders’ quotes, but I would bet money that they are accurate. The NRA is necessarily meticulous in their research and fact-checking — it’s their best defense against the gaggle of gun-haters who are always ready to pounce on any error or mis-statement which they might make.
Thomas Jefferson had a lot to say on the subject of private gun ownership. Here’s one more Jefferson quote —
“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.” - Thomas Jefferson
I checked out several videos and some other things regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers. From what I can tell, the assumption I’ve held regarding their intent seems to be wrong. It seems like the intent of our Founding Fathers was for people to be able to own fire arms to be able to protect themselves - I was wrong. I also really considered the logic that some people have about society being safer if people have guns to protect themselves. I think that argument does have a certain consistency in logic that is deserving of respect. Having said that, I do not believe that the founding fathers pondered automatic weapons, mass media, or school shootings, or the anti gun views than many people have today given our modern issues. I think if you could have showed them the future including Colorado, and Newtown etc, etc, the second amendment might have been written differently - just my guess.
About two years ago, my neighbor across the street asked me to vouch for him so that he could get a handgun for home protection. He is a former Marine and I trust his maturity and judgement and I wanted to be neighborly, so I did. I have every confidence that as he has solid weapons training, and from what I can tell, a very level head, the weapon is being stored appropriately, and that if I ever needed (g.d forbid as I grew up hearing) he is right across the street. I have several friends across the US who are gun enthusiasts that I debate on FB about the issue for fun and it’s all just friendly teasing.
All of that said, I’m not a fan of guns. I eat meat and fowl, but I don’t have the stomach for taking life myself. I like to fish, but I’m pretty much a catch and release person. Until I learn more, I hold on to the position of making hand gun ownership highly regulated. At a minimum gun registration and a ban on guns such as automatic weapons and the related ammo makes sense in my mind. Yes, I realize that the fact that I do eat meat but won’t kill the animal shows at least a little bit of hypocrisy.
Someone wrote about my naivete’ with regard to my understanding of human nature. Personally, I think people can think what they want, and I’m not offended by the comment. You can think I have a lack of experience with regard to human nature, if my posts lead one to that conclusion, but I’ve seen up close about how bad human nature can be at certain times, I just arrive at different conclusions.
Clint, no need to apologize for picking on me, as I, like debating and learning a lot. I wish your approach to debating were emulated by more people on BP, and I will say again off topic, that you and some others make a very impressive effort to make BP a more informative and useful place. I certainly appreciate what you do.
I’m feeling like the official BP conversation killer. It’s like going to Thanksgiving at my in-laws house and I say something controversial at dinner, and then people stop talking. My wife’s mom will pour herself a triple scotch, and pull out my wife’s high school year-book and mention all the fellows my wife could have married instead.
Brian, if I didn’t know better, I’d think that you have a persecution complex.
You aren’t a conversation-killer. On the contrary. After your last post on the gun issue, I dug up some stuff for you to read — but, then it occurred to me that you might think I was trying to persuade you to join the NRA and buy yourself some guns. Those would both be good things for you to do — but, I’ll stick to debating for now, and forgo the evangelizing.
One of the benefits of being an NRA member is that membership includes a subscription to one of the NRA’s publications. The magazine that I’ve chosen to subscribe to is called [I]America’s 1st Freedom,[/I] and — as you probably can guess — the emphasis in that magazine is on the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”; on the multitude of laws governing the ownership, use, purchase and sale of guns; on the efforts of the gun-control lobby to restrict all of that; and on the work of the NRA to combat those efforts. The magazine also contains news about gun shows around the country, articles about historic firearms, and lots of advertising of cool guns and shooting gear.
You can read [I]America’s 1st Freedom[/I] secretly, online, and none of your liberal buddies will ever know that you’re looking into the conservative point of view on the gun debate. Later, maybe, you’ll decide to come out of the liberal closet, and join the NRA. Then, you can get your very own copy of [I]America’s 1st Freedom[/I], printed in magnificent color on glossy paper, delivered to your mailbox every month. Then, the postman will see what you’re reading, and pretty soon your liberal buddies will find out that you have defected.
But, I digress.
The current issue — America’s 1st Freedom — has two articles — this one and this one — which I think you will be interested in reading, relating to this comment in your previous post:
You’re going to turn into a conservative, yet!
Just think how much fun it would be to go to Thanksgiving Dinner at your in-laws’, and announce over pie and coffee,
“I recently joined the NRA. And I bought myself a 9mm Glock.”
Better take an extra bottle of scotch for your mother-in-law.
Been awhile since I posted here but I want to give a mention to Switzerland and their gun ownership. They have a very high gun ownership with a homicide rate less than that of Australia.
I know Switzerland is a different country, but I think it proves it’s not just guns that are the problem.
[QUOTE=“wigglez;570044”]Been awhile since I posted here but I want to give a mention to Switzerland and their gun ownership. They have a very high gun ownership with a homicide rate less than that of Australia. I know Switzerland is a different country, but I think it proves it’s not just guns that are the problem.[/QUOTE]
It’s funny how the facts can be twisted to fit whatever agenda one might want to support.
Switzerland has many guns per capita because they have a mandatory military service and every man HAS to store their weapon at home. Most neither want this, nor support this idea. Furthermore, it only serves to put Switzerland near the top in suicide rates… 2nd in the world. Also, it has the highest suicide with firearms rate in Europe, 40% of which are carried out with the military issued weapon. I live in Switzerland, and have lived in the US. So no, it does not prove anything at all.
"I know Switzerland is a different country, but I think it proves it’s not [B]just[/B] guns that are the problem."
I believe it’s the people, not the guns.
I didn’t know about the suicide rates. Why is it so high? Do you believe suicides would drop substantially if firearms were no longer allowed?
Having lived in both Switzerland and the US I’d say that the two cultures are about as different as it is possible to get, to the point where direct comparisons of most aspects of society are almost meaningless in terms of establishing credence for a generic point.
[QUOTE=“wigglez;581001”] “I know Switzerland is a different country, but I think it proves it’s not just guns that are the problem.” I believe it’s the people, not the guns. I didn’t know about the suicide rates. Why is it so high? Do you believe suicides would drop substantially if firearms were no longer allowed?[/QUOTE]
The only thing I know for certain, is that it proves absolutely nothing. Like Simon said, the two cultures are totally different… specially their attitude towards guns. People in Switzerland don’t go out and buy a gun for protection, and there is not a single debate about conceal carry, open carry, guns in schools, assault weapons… etc (this just won’t occur). The only debate, is weather letting a bunch of part time warriors keep their military issued guns at home is a good idea… and the suicide numbers have been linked to this debate. Another interesting fact is that the great majority of the suicides are men, and that women, when they do commit suicide, they rarely use a gun… This has been linked to the fact that women don’t ever handle guns, nor do they feel comfortable around them.
In my opinion, weaponizing a society will always bring adverse effects it. These effects will differ from one place to another and respond to the cultural differences within, but they will always be negative. This is my personal opinion.
This is the point I was arguing for. It’s not the guns, its the people, culture.
I doubt men are killing themselves because they have to keep a gun in the house. Men are always more prone to suicide than women. I don’t really understand suicide very much, but I imagine a gun might make it easier. However, wanting to get rid of firearms to help drop suicide rates isn’t a fix. It’s a bandaid to a deeper cultural problem. Much like how the U.S. has a high ownership rate and isn’t as prone to suicide as switzerland.
The cultural aspect applies within the confines of the United States as well, as previously noted. I would completely disagree, however, with the opinion that adverse affects come from the weaponizing of society, including suicide.
Where I live, a rural area that has self-weaponized, crime rates are rather low. Violent crimes rates are even lower. So-called “gun” crimes are particularly low. Yet, the ownership of firearms is very high in my neck of the woods.
It is not a so much a question of how many households have a firearm as much as it is how many firearms are in each household.
Contrast that with urban areas such as Chicago, Detroit or Washington, D.C. where relatively few homeowners have a firearm, comparatively speaking, and the local governments impose as many restrictions on firearms as possible. In those areas you will find high crime rates, high violent crime rates and high “gun” crime rates even though very few individuals possess firearms (the criminals certainly do).
The cultural differences can be exemplified by how the people in these different areas view the role of police. In urban areas individuals believe that it is the role of government/police departments to stop crime and protect personal property and lives.
This is utter nonsense in rural areas where the view is that no policeman has ever prevented a crime and is only rarely in the right place at the right time to help stop a crime in progress. It is the role of the individual to protect his/her own life as well as those of his/her family and to protect his/her property. A police department may be of assistance to investigate and, hopefully, arrest criminals after a crime has actually taken place – nothing more.
The difference is simply one of individual self-reliance v. dependence upon the government.
I have witnessed two armed robberies in my life. The first was an armed robbery of a liquor store when I lived in a large urban area. The criminals pointed their handguns at all present and simply made a dash to their vehicle and got away. No one but the criminals was armed.
The second was actually an attempted armed robbery of a convenience store near where I currently live. The clerk chose not to comply with the demands for cash and instead pulled out a shotgun from under the counter and the criminals, deciding cowardice was the better part of valor, attempted to run away. Upon exiting the establishment, the two criminals found no less than four individuals aiming various firearms at them in the parking lot when they happened to noticed “Joe” the clerk might need a bit of assistance.
Where do I feel more secure? Upon whom do I wish to rely, the government or myself/family/friends/neighbors? Firearms are an invaluable tool for the self-reliant.
As far as suicide rates and a weaponized society – methinks there are other issues at play to cause such deep depression than simply having a firearm in the home.
A simple experiment is actually quite helpful: Have your neighbor place a sign in his front yard that says “This property protected by Smith&Wesson” while YOU place a sign in your yard that says “This is a gun-free house.” Whom do you think is more likely to be a victim of a crime? Now apply the same experiment on a societal level…
[QUOTE=“JohnLeonard;581115”] The cultural aspect applies within the confines of the United States as well, as previously noted. I would completely disagree, however, with the opinion that adverse affects come from the weaponizing of society, including suicide. Where I live, a rural area that has self-weaponized, crime rates are rather low. Violent crimes rates are even lower. So-called “gun” crimes are particularly low. Yet, the ownership of firearms is very high in my neck of the woods. It is not a so much a question of how many households have a firearm as much as it is how many firearms are in each household. Contrast that with urban areas such as Chicago, Detroit or Washington, D.C. where relatively few homeowners have a firearm, comparatively speaking, and the local governments impose as many restrictions on firearms as possible. In those areas you will find high crime rates, high violent crime rates and high “gun” crime rates even though very few individuals possess firearms (the criminals certainly do). The cultural differences can be exemplified by how the people in these different areas view the role of police. In urban areas individuals believe that it is the role of government/police departments to stop crime and protect personal property and lives. This is utter nonsense in rural areas where the view is that no policeman has ever prevented a crime and is only rarely in the right place at the right time to help stop a crime in progress. It is the role of the individual to protect his/her own life as well as those of his/her family and to protect his/her property. A police department may be of assistance to investigate and, hopefully, arrest criminals after a crime has actually taken place – nothing more. The difference is simply one of individual self-reliance v. dependence upon the government. I have witnessed two armed robberies in my life. The first was an armed robbery of a liquor store when I lived in a large urban area. The criminals pointed their handguns at all present and simply made a dash to their vehicle and got away. No one but the criminals was armed. The second was actually an attempted armed robbery of a convenience store near where I currently live. The clerk chose not to comply with the demands for cash and instead pulled out a shotgun from under the counter and the criminals, deciding cowardice was the better part of valor, attempted to run away. Upon exiting the establishment, the two criminals found no less than four individuals aiming various firearms at them in the parking lot when they happened to noticed “Joe” the clerk might need a bit of assistance. Where do I feel more secure? Upon whom do I wish to rely, the government or myself/family/friends/neighbors? Firearms are an invaluable tool for the self-reliant. As far as suicide rates and a weaponized society – methinks there are other issues at play to cause such deep depression than simply having a firearm in the home. A simple experiment is actually quite helpful: Have your neighbor place a sign in his front yard that says “This property protected by Smith&Wesson” while YOU place a sign in your yard that says “This is a gun-free house.” Whom do you think is more likely to be a victim of a crime? Now apply the same experiment on a societal level…[/QUOTE]
I totally disagree with every single point you have made, but I’m way too lazy to give a Flying Fish about it.
If over 30,000 deaths per year by firearms is not enough for you guys, and the best idea you can come up with is to add some more firearms to the mix then by all means go ahead geniuses. I’m just glad I don’t live anywhere near you guys.
Uhm… So people didnt kill each other before the advent of widespread gun use…? Come on that is the laziest argument and train of thought one can hold. Some of humankind’s most bloody periods were pre-gun era… And there is no logical argument that could be made that would describe a theoretical post gun society that would not be just as bloody… Humans will always find a way to kill each other. That’s the nature of humankind. That is why guns were invented… Take a look at historical violent deaths as a ratio of global populations pre gun era and post gun era… I think you’d be surprised.