LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I doubt that the amount of substitute weapons violence would be anywhere near as high as the gun violence that it replaced.
- Status
L
LongingSoul
Guest
That does sound like the Swiss meaning of militia. Zoltan was suggesting that there was no need to have any collective mentality to identify as militia… merely owning a gun made that the case and if individual desires trumped a collective mentality… the gun in your hands is still a ‘right’ because it’s a right without any further qualification.
I would let Thomas Jefferson (who has been mistaken for a progressive/liberal by one of the posters) speak for me:
“Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of **neighboring citizens **as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them.”
–Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
You do realise Jefferson said that 250 years ago. It is highly reasonable that if an invading army struck at a random point around your coast being that there was no radar tracking, foreign intelligence or countrywide regular army bases… the most sensible option is to arm the locals and have them moderately battle ready around the shore area. It might reasonably take weeks for the regular army on their horses to prepare themselves and get there to take over. But that is what he is saying. This militia provided a first line of defense until the regular army arrived to take over.
Do people own guns with this duty in mind these days? Is there any training for the event of an invading enemy? Doesn’t that seem like a bit of a silly justification for the mass ownership of guns by ‘the people’ in this day and age? How much do people actually truly identify with any sort of duty to others or the constitution at all? Hasn’t the strong emphasis on the individuals right made the individual the highest priority to defend? Defending the constitution only means defending my rights now. It doesn’t mean defending my rights in the interest of the whole countries rights… the ‘common good’. The theory is more the new age chant “I’m OK. You’re OK”. If my rights are paramount then the common good is served.
When I read the words of Jefferson, I feel a strong unspoken emphasis on the national good. The individual right to bear arms is an *auxilliary right *as described by the original formers of the English Bill of Rights upon which the constitution is based. A right in service of the right to self defense. It’s hard to imagine that Jefferson would have seen this right as viable in an age where over each 10 period it would cost 300,000 American lives in homocide and suicide before ever even seeing an invading enemy turn up on the beach.
It’s a bit like St Paul said… the letter of the law kills. You have to grasp the spirit of the law formulated in a time, for the times to serve a purpose that exists to meet a need.
D
DianePa
Guest
You are misguided in your comment "The individual right to bear arms is an *auxiliary right *as described by the original formers of the English Bill of Rights upon which the constitution is based. A right in service of the right to self defense.
Understand that every right was inherent and belonged to the people. There was no auxiliary right but those granted by the people to the state. Any right not granted to the state was retained by the people.
The invader Jefferson was including in another of his quotes was for the people to have arms to repel an invader and ALSO if needed to be able to cast out a tyrannical government.
If you or anyone else wants to rip up our rights then you have the means to do just that by amending the constitution which we have a right to do but under strict guidelines. Not by fiat as this president is want to do. Only the people and the states are permitted to do that when presented with an amendment offered by the Congress, not the uninformed such as many of those now serving in the federal and state legislatures.
No one in our government has the right to demand I be unarmed and not have the means to protect myself against an aggressor. And believe me there are a number of them patrolling the streets intent upon all sorts of criminal acts upon those unable to protect themselves as proven by the latest episodes directed upon unarmed and unprotected citizens.
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Good Afternoon Gorgias: I would be happy to provide that. The numbers are derived from a number of sources such as the CDC. The costs are calculated in much the same manner as other expensive deadly habits such as smoking. The CDC reported 105,177 shootings resulting in injury in the sample year provided. Among these, 31,672 resulted in death and the causes were homicide, accident, suicide and law-enforcement action. Also among these, 38,566 spent time in hospitals after being admitted, and 34,939 were taken to emergency rooms, treated and released.
Economic models and formulas used by government agencies, hospitals and courts were then applied to these to determine the cost. Estimates on lost wages and future earnings are also customarily used in such calculations, and in this case the Department of Labor and Census Bureau provided the numbers on that. The figures on the average cost of the hospital visits for shootings were provided by the US Health and Human Services Department.
Thank you,
Gary
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
There are no cultural differences in America. Remember “E Pluribus Unum”. Diversity is on the way out along with multiculturalism. We are Americans. We are free.
Precisely! Having the word in the Constitution only muddies the waters. The Constitution protects an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. A militia is not only a myth is it not necessary.
The Constitution was written to promote the general welfare. Defending it is a noble duty.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That may have been the stated intention of the Constitution, but it is debatable whether or not it actually does what it intended. The point made by LongingSoul remains standing.
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Good Evening Diane: The difference between what you are saying and what Thomas Jefferson said in 1801 is that Jefferson was addressing the practical realities of his time. You are using the same words to address the practical realities of your time, which involve such things as radar, sonar, the internet, 24 hour news, Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, Drones, Stealth Bombers, attack helicopters, submarines, destroyers, a large navy accompanied by a large marine corps, complimented by a large standing army that is covered by an air force. My direct question to you is this: **Which militia is holding down the fort for them? What militia is needed to do so? **
I would let Thomas Jefferson (who has been mistaken for a progressive/liberal by one of the posters) speak for me:
“Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of **neighboring citizens **as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them.”
–Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
Now, I will certainly be the first to acquire something of a taste for crow the next time Admiral Rodney terrorizes the Chesapeake with a fleet of schooners carrying an expeditionary force of Her Majesty’s Royal Hussars with no Minute Men on hand to defend my homestead. But until that happens I remain a vegetarian with no appetition for crow, and I honestly wonder if you are just being silly or you really believe what you’re saying. By the way, when Jefferson wrote that, you would have had no say in the matter, because you wouldn’t have been able to vote. But times have changed and and perhaps it’s none of my business, but maybe you should consider living in the time you’re in. Just a suggestion though.
Thank you,
Gary
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Diversity is on the way out? Have you seen the 2010 census figures? Every statistical measure says that the population is becoming more diverse, as well as more polarized. You can’t brush that under the rug with a Latin slogan.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Leaf, a great many things are debatable. For instance, would you say that the defense of our Constitution is NOT a noble deed?
PS: LongingSoul’s point collapsed. Because I said so…not because YOU said it remains standing.
What are you…the referee here???
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
If that IS happening, it is a dangerous condition for our Country to be in. Periculum ab interiori,
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Well, since you put it that way, of course you must be right.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yes, dangerous indeed! So you can see why the last thing we need is to have opposite sides in an internal debate be armed to the teeth, each side ready to push their own agenda by force of arms.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
No every right was not inherent. The English Bill of Rights regarded the right to bear arms as an auxiliary right.
“The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
There are natural rights and their are auxiliary rights. For example, we have a natural right to fare wages for a fair days work. We have an auxilliary right to strike if that right is not upheld. There is no natural right to strike. That right has to be in service to the natural right that is recognised collectively by a standard that serves the common good.
The people give the State the authority to make and enforce laws that serve the common good of all. The people don’t grant the State a ‘right to govern’. That’s not what a right is. Only God and nature grant rights. An right cannot be created and simply made inalienable because. It either is inalienable as in being a right for everyone, everywhere at anytime without qualification. Or it is an auxilliary right that serves that natural right and it can become illegitimate if it is not fully serving that natural right positively.
Isn’t that what the vote is for? When there is so much diversity and robust debate in the community about what ideas and policies serve the common good… how would there ever be a consensus between all ‘the people’ against a government elected by their vote that would end with all the people on mass taking up guns against the government? Does that really sound feasible?
How would ‘the people’ actually do that though? Isn’t that the point of discussion and debate and the vote? You make it sound like the people have the key to the constitution safe and if they were all to agree around a giant pow wow that something should be changed, they march into the safe room with a marker and wrote over the relevant bits.No one in our government has the right to demand I be unarmed and not have the means to protect myself against an aggressor. And believe me there are a number of them patrolling the streets intent upon all sorts of criminal acts upon those unable to protect themselves as proven by the latest episodes directed upon unarmed and unprotected citizens.
The system of goverment we adopt will never be perfect but the reason we have it is to make things happen for the common good of all. That includes giving authority to the experts and advisors. ethicists and theorists, special interest groups and most especially representatives of the vulnerable in society… to put the best show together for us. How on earth are all ‘the people’ qualified enough to be better than the ones we elect to represent our perspective?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
R
Rau
Guest
Which kinda makes the point that the poll question, being absent a definition of “pro-gun” cannot produce meaningful information. If we don’t be have commonly understood terms, conversation can become useless.
R
Rau
Guest
But it is not the highest duty. For we know that Constitutions ought be amended from time to time.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Why? Do you suspect that, deprived of guns, criminals will be so demoralized that they’ll stop victimizing people?
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK – so, you’ll have to remove ‘suicide’ and ‘law-enforcement action’ from your statistics, then. Suicide will remain (folks’ll just find other methods); so, that isn’t really ‘gun violence’ cost, then. We’ll presume you’re not asking law enforcement to give up their guns, so their costs will remain, as well.
So, where are your ‘costs’ being borne, then? Hospital costs? Future potential earnings of those killed by gun violence? How are those sources going to pay for the tens (or hundreds) of billions that a gun buy-back will cost? Remember – we’re not talking about soft dollars here: a gun buy-back will cost real dollars. You’re not demonstrating any bank accounts from which those dollars will come.
Like I said, ‘soft dollars’. None of these are actual real dollars! In other words, none of these losses can be liquidated to provide hard cash for a gun buy-back! You can see that, can’t you?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
[SIGN][/SIGN]
It is quite simple, really. When something is easier, more people will do it. When something gets harder, fewer people choose to do it.Why? Do you suspect that, deprived of guns, criminals will be so demoralized that they’ll stop victimizing people?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You are wrong on both counts. While some suicides will remain, it is undeniable that the difficulty in carrying out a suicide is a strong deterrent from actually doing it. And the amount of law enforcement actions is a consequence of the need for such actions. Reduction in guns will certainly reduce the need for law enforcement to use their guns.
- Status