Arapahoe HS Shooting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cricket2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, you are saying the insurgents are winning in Iraq and Afghanistan? It seems like they are taking huge losses and the only reason that it isn’t worse for them is the reluctance to risk civilian casualties. If a tyrannical government exists, then I wonder if it would care one way or another on civilian casualties.

It doesn’t state in the actual 2nd amendment that it is there to guard against a tyranny, just that it is necessary to have a well-regulated militia for the security of the state. It may be some’s interpretation that it is to protect against a tyrannical government, but it doesn’t say so, and I generally dislike the insistence of some to use the personal interpretations of some of the Founding Fathers as a guide to what it meant, as, if that’s what it was supposed to mean, they should have just said so.

Personally, I think it is very difficult to put this amendment in a 21st century context because the founding fathers as a whole were very weary of standing armies. When a crisis arouse, a new army was formed and that was generally acceptable. I’m not sure we can really understand how they would interpret the idea of spending almost a trillion dollars a year on a standing army and that army could basically destroy anything it felt like anywhere in the world within minutes of deciding to destroy it. I honestly think they would all be initially horrified at the military we have today until they understood the context to why it exists and I’m not sure they would draw the same conclusions today that they did at the end of the 18th century.
Putting a personal interpretation on what they meant and wanted the amendments to cover would be ignoring the rather large amount of writings by the guys who wrote the Constitution in regards to tyranny of government and the fact that one of the major reasons they went to war against the British government was due to what they felt was a tyrannical over bearing government. I won’t even go into the implications of the massive amount of checks and balances our system of government has in its framework or the fact we have the “First 10 Amendments” is because a lot of the people responsible for the Constitution didn’t buy into the argument “we don’t need to spell out what rights are absolutely protected because we don’t ever have to worry about the government trying to infringe upon them.”

As for the effectiveness of armed civilians against a military powerhouse, note that the Iraqi military ceased to exist (to a large degree literally) less than two months (being generous here) after we invaded Iraq. The insurgency lasted how long? Even after we wised up and started co-oping the insurgents’ support base (i.e. we started to “pay off” Iraqi tribes and armed groups [some of them insurgent groups] to help us fight the insurgents)? How about Afghanistan? We’ve completely neutralized the insurgents there right?
 
Crossbones, you can read for yourself what they thought

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
  • Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, June 1776, Thomas Jefferson Papers, p.334 (C.J. Boyd. Ed., 1950)
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
  • Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in “On Crimes and Punishment”, 1764.
“When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
  • Thomas Jefferson, Letters.
“The Constitution of most of our states, and the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people, that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of prosperity, and freedom of the press.”
  • Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”
  • Samuel Adams
“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 ratification convention for the U. S. Constitution. 1788
“Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
  • Benjamin Franklin, reply to Pennsylvania Assembly to the governor, November 11, 1755.
“Before a standing army can rule [in tyranny], the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
  • Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution” (1787)
“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at the individual discretion, in private self-defense.”
  • John Adams, “A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-88.
“To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
  • Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer #53, 1788.
“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. Every man who is able may have a gun.”
  • Patrick Henry, Virginia ratification convention for the U. S. Constitution.
“Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived the use of them.”
  • Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” 1775
“A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes, we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”
  • George Washington, Boston Independence Chronicle, January 14, 1790.
 
Thank you for clarifying that comment, and you are correct, the media does like to portray those weapons as big and scary things. I think a lot of people involved in the gun debate (myself included) would benefit greatly from a gun safety course. Even if it is purely educational and they don’t even have to touch a gun. From my experience, the safest person to be around guns is someone who owns a gun - I know that sounds redundant, but they are always cognizant of any risks (such as someone holding a gun, turning to talk to someone, and not realizing they are pointing a gun at a person).
From the handgun course I teach, here are the basics for beginners:
  1. Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
  2. Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
  3. Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
  4. Know your target and what is beyond.
  5. Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Being always cognizant of risks is called “situational awareness,” and is critical in any self defense.
 
Crossbones, you can read for yourself what they thought

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
Benjamin Franklin, 1759…
Great quotes from great men. However, in agreeing with all of those statements, I find I do not contradict myself by saying certain types of weapons should not be allowed outside of military or law enforcement use. Others on this thread have argued otherwise - that if a weapon is in existence, a citizen should have every right to own it, and any mention of restricting access to some weapons is close to being an act of tyranny.
 
So following your logic, it seems you are arguing that the right to bear arms is limitless in the type of arm, correct? Then how are there restrictions on RPGs, flamethrowers, etc? Aren’t those considered ‘types’ of firearms? All rights have restrictions, so why should the right to bear arms be any different? The truth is that there aren’t restrictions on what cars we could have, but if the national speed limit was 10 mph (an example of something that is heavily regulated and restricted), you may wonder why someone continues to stock up on cars that can go 0-60 in under 3 seconds…

You have to break away from the ‘what’ and focus on the ‘why’. Why is it necessary to own these types of weapons, and does the benefit to society (including safety) of banning these weapons outweigh the functionality of civilians owning them? For this argument, I think you have to look at the utility of why civilians need them, and that’s what answer I’m waiting on.
I agree with you. What may have been appropriate 200 years ago may not be so now. I am not suggesting that the right to bear arms should be taken away, but I do think we are in times that require some common sense. Why would the common man or woman find it necessary to own guns and weaponry fit for war?

We have to have some way of protecting people from those who do mean us harm. I can say I would not have a problem with shooting someone in self defense, but that need is highly unlikely. My greater fear is a perpetrator getting their hands on a gun I might own and using it on me. Consequently I don’t own one and never will.

It is a shame that there are so many abusers of this right out there.
 
By semi-automatic, I mean that a single pull of the trigger will release a 3-5 shot burst. You can not simply hold down the trigger and empty the magazine, but multiple bullets are fired with each pull of the trigger, rather than a weapon that fires one bullet per trigger pull.

Also, I don’t believe intensive knowledge about fire arms is critical for a theoretical discussion about gun control. If we can agree that the main (though not only) purposes of gun ownership are hunting and home defense, I think we can begin to say certain weapons are completely unnecessary for either activity, so we must ask the question why they are needed under the regulations?
Well, that’s not what semi-automatic means. Semi-automatic means one bullet per trigger pull. How can you expect us to debate you when you don’t even know what semi-automatic means yet you think that civilians should not be able to own semi-automatic guns? Almost all handguns are semi-automatic. Do you think civilians should not be allowed to own handguns?

We do not agree that the main purpose of gun ownership is hunting and home defense. The main purpose of gun ownership is defense against tyranny, period. The Founding Fathers are very clear on this if you would just take the time to read some of their writings.
 
This is absurd. And I’m sorry, but I believe the idea that there should be zero regulation on any type of weaponry for private citizens is also absurd.
Well, I think that any regulation on any type of weaponry for private citizens is absurd and is unconstitutional. Allowing agents of the state to have weaponry that private citizens cannot have is also absurd.
 
I agree with you. What may have been appropriate 200 years ago may not be so now. I am not suggesting that the right to bear arms should be taken away, but I do think we are in times that require some common sense. Why would the common man or woman find it necessary to own guns and weaponry fit for war?
Because some day we might have to go to war.
 
Well, that’s not what semi-automatic means. Semi-automatic means one bullet per trigger pull. How can you expect us to debate you when you don’t even know what semi-automatic means yet you think that civilians should not be able to own semi-automatic guns? Almost all handguns are semi-automatic. Do you think civilians should not be allowed to own handguns?

We do not agree that the main purpose of gun ownership is hunting and home defense. The main purpose of gun ownership is defense against tyranny, period. The Founding Fathers are very clear on this if you would just take the time to read some of their writings.
Forgive me - I plead ignorance, admitted my wrongs, but how does a misunderstanding in terms stop me from discussing guns at all? All of these posts have been driving at a single solitary point: guns are okay, but not all guns, and I’d like to believe most reasonable people (such as OldCatholicGuy) admit as much.

And I read all of the quotes previously posted from the Founding Fathers. My assumption is they all had guns for hunting and guns for home defense (as some noted speaking about burglars and criminals). They also state that the right to bear arms is essential in defense against tyranny - and you may find it semantics, but I find a difference. If you surveyed 100 average gun-owning citizens and asked why they own a game, would “Defense against tyranny” outrank “hunting” or “defending my home/family/self”?
 
Well, I think that any regulation on any type of weaponry for private citizens is absurd and is unconstitutional. Allowing agents of the state to have weaponry that private citizens cannot have is also absurd.
And I hope you are in the majority that you are against any regulation whatsoever. The USA has nuclear weapons - should a private citizen have access to this also? What about gallows, the electric chair, lethal injection, gas chamber? Should private citizens have these because agents of the state do also? You are making statements but not seeing the logical consequences that result from them.

We are a representative democracy, we elect leaders who make laws, these laws allow for certain trained officers and agents to possess items and act in certain ways that we prevent the average citizen from doing. We have courts to make sure these powers are not abused, but we still recognize those powers as greater than those of ordinary private citizens. That is why agents of the state have these weapons - because private citizens created a system that desired this as a means of protection against crime against citizens and crime against our country.
 
Putting a personal interpretation on what they meant and wanted the amendments to cover would be ignoring the rather large amount of writings by the guys who wrote the Constitution in regards to tyranny of government and the fact that one of the major reasons they went to war against the British government was due to what they felt was a tyrannical over bearing government. I won’t even go into the implications of the massive amount of checks and balances our system of government has in its framework or the fact we have the “First 10 Amendments” is because a lot of the people responsible for the Constitution didn’t buy into the argument “we don’t need to spell out what rights are absolutely protected because we don’t ever have to worry about the government trying to infringe upon them.”

As for the effectiveness of armed civilians against a military powerhouse, note that the Iraqi military ceased to exist (to a large degree literally) less than two months (being generous here) after we invaded Iraq. The insurgency lasted how long? Even after we wised up and started co-oping the insurgents’ support base (i.e. we started to “pay off” Iraqi tribes and armed groups [some of them insurgent groups] to help us fight the insurgents)? How about Afghanistan? We’ve completely neutralized the insurgents there right?
I think the writings are important in understanding the definitions of the words they used, but I wonder about relying too heavily on the writings of just a few (Federalist Papers with Hamilton, Madison and (barely) Jay). Maybe it’s just my personal experience, but I have found that sometimes when something is written as a group, the group has agreed to one thing, but often a member of the group spins it to mean more than was intended by the group. The topic is interesting; I should find a good source to read on it. Can you recommend one?

With regards to the insurgency, it is difficult for me to gauge because of the lack of good news coverage on it. That’s weird to say, but essentially true. Again, I would be interested if you could point me to a good source on the topic.
 
And I hope you are in the majority that you are against any regulation whatsoever. The USA has nuclear weapons - should a private citizen have access to this also? What about gallows, the electric chair, lethal injection, gas chamber? Should private citizens have these because agents of the state do also? You are making statements but not seeing the logical consequences that result from them.

We are a representative democracy, we elect leaders who make laws, these laws allow for certain trained officers and agents to possess items and act in certain ways that we prevent the average citizen from doing. We have courts to make sure these powers are not abused, but we still recognize those powers as greater than those of ordinary private citizens. That is why agents of the state have these weapons - because private citizens created a system that desired this as a means of protection against crime against citizens and crime against our country.
If I had the money and the means to acquire a nuclear weapon do you really think the laws of this country, or the world for that matter, would stop me?
 
Modern examples of what? The point was that our military now is more advanced than it was in Vietnam and the American Revolution.
As an example of a group of people resisting the vastly superior US military. Something you claimed was not possible for citizens of the US.
 
From the handgun course I teach, here are the basics for beginners:
  1. Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
  2. Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
  3. Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
  4. Know your target and what is beyond.
  5. Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Being always cognizant of risks is called “situational awareness,” and is critical in any self defense.
And don’t point a gun at another person unless you are willing to pull the trigger.
 
I am not suggesting that the right to bear arms should be taken away, but I do think we are in times that require some common sense. Why would the common man or woman find it necessary to own guns and weaponry fit for war?
I don’t understand something here. On one hand, people on the Left say “Ordinary citizens couldn’t possibly expect to defend themselves against the government” and on the other hand you say “why do ordinary citizens need military-type arms?”

Well duh. That is precisely *why *citizens need military-type arms. How else are they going to have a fighting chance?
 
If I had the money and the means to acquire a nuclear weapon do you really think the laws of this country, or the world for that matter, would stop me?
That isn’t the question - the question is should you LEGALLY be able to own one? If the NSA catches that you are shopping around for plutonium and detonators, I’m guessing they’ll be keeping you under 24-hour surveillance.
 
As an example of a group of people resisting the vastly superior US military. Something you claimed was not possible for citizens of the US.
I didn’t claim it wasn’t possible. I piggy-backed off the claim that the military will always be better armed than civilians, to which you countered that the military would ‘lead the charge’ on Washington. I then asked you why, then, if the well-armed military is leading the charge do we need weapons of equitable destruction, to which you did not respond.
 
And don’t point a gun at another person unless you are willing to pull the trigger.
Thank you both for the gun safety tips. More specifically, I meant all citizens should be in a room with someone who is trained in gun safety and has a gun on the table. I think a lot of people are nervous about guns because they have never been around them. If you get people to know how to be safe with guns, and to know that you can feel comfortable around them when they are in the possession of trained, responsible citizens, I think the left side of the gun debate (except the extreme left) starts shuffling a little towards the center…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top