The Right to Bear Arms

[jwinch2]

Are Calls for Stricter Gun Laws Really About Guns?

youtube.com/watch?v=Lzup9xdqOnQ

 

[wondrousgnat]

cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

Richard Henry Lee wrote in a letter to the Republican from the Federal Farmer XVIII 1788, May

Called the father of the Constitution, James Madison spoke of in 1784

He compared that too

I Annuals of Congress 434 June 8, 1789 he said

Called father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason said

There is zero evidence from federalist papers, founding fathers, supreme court decisions or American legal commentators from the earliest days of the founding of America that say the 2nd amendment was only for a state or goverment ran militia

They were slave owners all. And were about slave insurrection. I would assume that they also supported the institution of slavery. Richard Henry (Lighthorse Harry) Lee was also a drunk and a deadbeat.

 

[jwinch2]

They were slave owners all. And were about slave insurrection. I would assume that they also supported the institution of slavery. Richard Henry (Lighthorse Harry) Lee was also a drunk and a deadbeat.

Well, its nice to see we have moved on from the Logical Fallacy of the Strawman to the Logical Fallacy of the Red Herring, and have now arrived at the Logical Fallacy of the Ad Hominem.

Whether the persons quoted above did or did not support the horrific institution of slavery has zero to do with the intent of the framers of the US Constitution regarding the 2nd Amendment.

 

[nitesnake]

The USCCB agrees with me nitesnake.

The most direct statement comes in the bishops’ “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” from November 2000.

“As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer – especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner – and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”

Therefore what? You agree with their opinions, that’s all they are.

That’s followed by a footnote that states: “However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use --** handguns should be eliminated from our society**.”

That in turn reiterates a line in the bishops’ 1990 pastoral statement on substance abuse, which called “for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.”

Again, so what? Those statements are simply political opinions by the Bishops. I am completely free to disagree with them. Doing so does nothing to separate me, or put me odds with The Church.

 

[nitesnake]

Me too, but look at it this way. I’m a trained martial artist, I own a number of scary weapons, including swords. If someone broke in I wouldn’t use one though, I’d defend my home with a boken, or nunchuks, something that would work without being lethal. This is how self defense is taught in the Bible BTW.

And while you’re busy swinging your nunchuks around, the “someone” who broke into your home will be busy emptying his gun into your chest.

 

[jwinch2]

Violent Crime Against Youth, 1994–2010
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
December 2012, NCJ 240106
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vcay9410.pdf

The rate of “serious violent crime” committed against youth by a perpetrator using a firearm dropped 95 percent from 1994 to 2010. The study also suggested that American youth who were victims of a serious violent crime in 2010 were six times more likely to have been attacked by a perpetrator wielding a knife than one wielding a gun.

Serious violent crimes against youth perpetrated at schools dropped 62 percent from 1994 to 2010 and students were less likely to become victims of a serious violent crime at school than they were away from school.

The idea that somehow incidents like the tragedy at Sandy Hook are on the rise is false and is being used to push an agenda.

 

[october_baby]

Fully automatic rifles are banned

Adam Lanza did not take a semi automatic rifle in to the school, 4 handguns were recovered

Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control by Gary Kleck summarizies 47 studies on gun control and the median of semi automatic rifles involved in gun crime was 1.8%

Los Angeles watch shop owner Lance Thomas had multiple people trying to rob him and he shot several people and he realised that it took so many shots to top them that he had to put multiple guns every few feet on his bench in shop. Carrying multiple handguns in concealed carry permit states or at home is impractical. Imagine you are suddenly attacked pr hear itnriducers in your home, it is impractical for a person to hold more than 2 guns and shoot them accurately and if there is a group of burglers a handgun may not be enough to stop them

Police text book Street Survival has photos of an armed robber who had to be stopped by 33 9mm bullets before he stopped trying to kill the officers

I had that book! it’s great!npatrol:

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Fully automatic rifles are banned

Adam Lanza did not take a semi automatic rifle in to the school, 4 handguns were recovered

Did you mean to say he did not take an automatic rifle into the school?

He had a Bushmaster AR-15 with which he did most of the killing. He did have some hand guns too. A Bushmaster, of course, is a semi-automatic rifle.

 

[JesuisSean]

It’s a crazy world at this time.

People believe that they clearly have the “Right to Bear Arms” such that they can protect themselves from other people who believe that they clearly have the “Right to Bear Arms”.

Then you here statements such as " Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.".

Therefore, based on this specific logic, every person in the country should have the right to bear at least one atomic bomb.

After all, even if the weapons get bigger and bigger and bigger, the humans, the people, are still the same size. Thus based on today’s INSANE logic of " Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.", every person in the country should have the right to bear at least one atomic bomb, because the bombs don’t kill people, people kill people, and thus the atomic bombs would just sit there at rest hurting no one at all. Thus based on today’s INSANE logic there would be absolutely nothing to worry about.

However, for some bizarre reason, many of those who support the idea of every person having the right to bear arms, and also state that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, for some reason would back down to the approval of individuals having the right to have atomic bomb ownership, even though in turn this throws the " Guns don’t kill people; people kill people." statement out the window.

Thus they are saying that a certain number of deaths is acceptable, meaning, just keep it small and we as usual will be totally happy about it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Did you mean to say he did not take an automatic rifle into the school?

He had a Bushmaster AR-15 with which he did most of the killing. He did have some hand guns too. A Bushmaster, of course, is a semi-automatic rifle.

Nbc news says 4 handguns were recovered from the school. Lanza left the AR 15 in the car

 

[wondrousgnat]

There is something here I find really pathetique. So many threads and so many posts dealing with guns. Yet everyday over a thousand innocent children are murdered in their mothers’ wombs. This is a socalled Catholic room. Instead of whining about guns why not get off your butts and join me in the picket at the abortion clinic. That is where the real killing is. Often I am alone there.

Standing up against abortion was the biggest reason I converted to the church. Yet sometimes I am alone (although some Protestants also join me).

 

[jwinch2]

There is something here I find really pathetique. So many threads and so many posts dealing with guns. Yet everyday over a thousand innocent children are murdered in their mothers’ wombs. This is a socalled Catholic room. Instead of whining about guns why not get off your butts and join me in the picket at the abortion clinic. That is where the real killing is. Often I am alone there.

Standing up against abortion was the biggest reason I converted to the church. Yet sometimes I am alone (although some Protestants also join me).

You may be the only person at your rally, but many on CAF work hard on a regular basis on the issue of life, donate to pro-life groups, pray regularly, etc.

Secondly, I think the overwhelming majority on this forum agree. From your post count it does not appear as if you have spent a ton of time on the forum, but if you look, you will find hundreds if not a thousand or more abortion related threads. In addition, many bring it up in the context of other things. For example, you are not the first to bring up abortion within the context of the gun control debate. My own position is that if you want to save kids, start there. Then, move on to improving medical practice as far more die that way then in gun crime. After that, improve traffic safety as it is next on the list. Then, something no one on the left certainly wishes to acknowledge, work on protecting the family. Kids in homes with unmarried parents are 3.8 times more likely to be the victim of violent crime as compared to kids living in a home with married parents.

childdeathreview.org/Reports/PA_CDR2012.pdf
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vcay9410.pdf

 

[october_baby]

There is something here I find really pathetique. So many threads and so many posts dealing with guns. Yet everyday over a thousand innocent children are murdered in their mothers’ wombs. This is a socalled Catholic room. Instead of whining about guns why not get off your butts and join me in the picket at the abortion clinic. That is where the real killing is. Often I am alone there.

Standing up against abortion was the biggest reason I converted to the church. Yet sometimes I am alone (although some Protestants also join me).

is it lonely on your pedestal wondrousgnat?

 

[dshix]

Well, its nice to see we have moved on from the Logical Fallacy of the Strawman to the Logical Fallacy of the Red Herring, and have now arrived at the Logical Fallacy of the Ad Hominem.

Whether the persons quoted above did or did not support the horrific institution of slavery has zero to do with the intent of the framers of the US Constitution regarding the 2nd Amendment.

Hahahahah, so true!

This thread is so amusing.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s a crazy world at this time.

People believe that they clearly have the “Right to Bear Arms” such that they can protect themselves from other people who believe that they clearly have the “Right to Bear Arms”.

Then you here statements such as " Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.".

Therefore, based on this specific logic, every person in the country should have the right to bear at least one atomic bomb.

After all, even if the weapons get bigger and bigger and bigger, the humans, the people, are still the same size. Thus based on today’s INSANE logic of " Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.", every person in the country should have the right to bear at least one atomic bomb, because the bombs don’t kill people, people kill people, and thus the atomic bombs would just sit there at rest hurting no one at all. Thus based on today’s INSANE logic there would be absolutely nothing to worry about.

However, for some bizarre reason, many of those who support the idea of every person having the right to bear arms, and also state that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, for some reason would back down to the approval of individuals having the right to have atomic bomb ownership, even though in turn this throws the " Guns don’t kill people; people kill people." statement out the window.

Thus they are saying that a certain number of deaths is acceptable, meaning, just keep it small and we as usual will be totally happy about it.

Good points.

 

[dshix]

It’s a crazy world at this time.

People believe that they clearly have the “Right to Bear Arms” such that they can protect themselves from other people who believe that they clearly have the “Right to Bear Arms”.

Then you here statements such as " Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.".

Therefore, based on this specific logic, every person in the country should have the right to bear at least one atomic bomb.

After all, even if the weapons get bigger and bigger and bigger, the humans, the people, are still the same size. Thus based on today’s INSANE logic of " Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.", every person in the country should have the right to bear at least one atomic bomb, because the bombs don’t kill people, people kill people, and thus the atomic bombs would just sit there at rest hurting no one at all. Thus based on today’s INSANE logic there would be absolutely nothing to worry about.

However, for some bizarre reason, many of those who support the idea of every person having the right to bear arms, and also state that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, for some reason would back down to the approval of individuals having the right to have atomic bomb ownership, even though in turn this throws the " Guns don’t kill people; people kill people." statement out the window.

Thus they are saying that a certain number of deaths is acceptable, meaning, just keep it small and we as usual will be totally happy about it.

Your points seem quite well-founded. However, there is one small detail you seemed to ignore which rather undermines your whole argument.

Guns =/= bombs.

Our right to the private possession of guns is realistic. It gives citizens the opportunity to protect themselves. In the event of government imposing bad policies, it is possible for the citizens to stand up and fight back (as in the Revolutionary war).

Bombs, however, are an entirely different story. Nor are we talking about bombs. As a matter of fact, you brought bombs out of the blue from who knows where, and they have no part in this discussion. It is not legal for private citizens to possess atomic bombs; that is stupid, irrational, and dangerous.

If every person in the nation owned a gun and carried it with them, crime would be negligible because what criminal would be stupid enough to stick up a cashier when he knows everyone around him could possibly just pull out a gun and shoot him?

If every person in the nation owned an atomic bomb, if a single one of them used it, it would be game over. Literally. That’s why you argument that guns = bombs makes no sense.

I agree that there should be a ceiling at how powerful weapons get in the hands of citizens. As soon as we get to the point where a single shot from such a weapon could utterly destroy a large number of people where there is no chance of retaliation, it is not logical to put it in the hands of citizens.

 

[jwinch2]

It’s a crazy world at this time.

People believe that they clearly have the “Right to Bear Arms” such that they can protect themselves from other people who believe that they clearly have the “Right to Bear Arms”.

Then you here statements such as " Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.".

Therefore, based on this specific logic, every person in the country should have the right to bear at least one atomic bomb.

After all, even if the weapons get bigger and bigger and bigger, the humans, the people, are still the same size. Thus based on today’s INSANE logic of " Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.", every person in the country should have the right to bear at least one atomic bomb, because the bombs don’t kill people, people kill people, and thus the atomic bombs would just sit there at rest hurting no one at all. Thus based on today’s INSANE logic there would be absolutely nothing to worry about.

However, for some bizarre reason, many of those who support the idea of every person having the right to bear arms, and also state that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, for some reason would back down to the approval of individuals having the right to have atomic bomb ownership, even though in turn this throws the " Guns don’t kill people; people kill people." statement out the window.

Thus they are saying that a certain number of deaths is acceptable, meaning, just keep it small and we as usual will be totally happy about it.

And now we come to the Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

Perhaps we should try looking at actual evidence. Just a thought.

 

[dshix]

And now we come to the Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

Perhaps we should try looking at actual evidence. Just a thought.

I agree with you, but it’s no use trying to use evidence or facts to argue with them. It goes in one ear and out the other, and in the end the only way to win such an argument is by successively countering every one of their arguments, after which they will promptly change the subject.

 

[JesuisSean]

Your points seem quite well-founded. However, there is one small detail you seemed to ignore which rather undermines your whole argument.

Guns =/= bombs.

Our right to the private possession of guns is realistic. It gives citizens the opportunity to protect themselves. In the event of government imposing bad policies, it is possible for the citizens to stand up and fight back (as in the Revolutionary war).

Bombs, however, are an entirely different story. Nor are we talking about bombs. As a matter of fact, you brought bombs out of the blue from who knows where, and they have no part in this discussion. It is not legal for private citizens to possess atomic bombs; that is stupid, irrational, and dangerous.

If every person in the nation owned a gun and carried it with them, crime would be negligible because what criminal would be stupid enough to stick up a cashier when he knows everyone around him could possibly just pull out a gun and shoot him?

If every person in the nation owned an atomic bomb, if a single one of them used it, it would be game over. Literally. That’s why you argument that guns = bombs makes no sense.

I agree that there should be a ceiling at how powerful weapons get in the hands of citizens. As soon as we get to the point where a single shot from such a weapon could utterly destroy a large number of people where there is no chance of retaliation, it is not logical to put it in the hands of citizens.

Arms =/= Guns.

Based on this logic, we are right back to where we started in saying that everybody has the " Right to Bear Arms ", specifically TWO arms.

So maybe your right. Two arms sounds pretty safe to me.

 

[dshix]

Arms =/= Guns.

Based on this logic, we are right back to where we started in saying that everybody has the " Right to Bear Arms ", specifically TWO arms.