Gun Control, A rational discussion Options

[Bargod]

The website he linked it to show the site www.cdc.gov I believe that is the correct site? I just put in the criteria that he mentioned and came up with the same numbers he did. What exactly is not jiving. What criteria are you looking at that is different than what he is looking at?

I'm looking at the table of accidental deaths. You don't have to enter any variables or anything. It just presenting the #'s in a tabular form. I linked to it earlier.

I think I know what's up. I think one chart is only counting "accidental" deaths, like from a kid dropping a loaded gun, and the other may be counting "accidental" deaths like somebody fired a gun at random and "accidentally" hit somebody they didn't think would get hit.
Maybe that's the difference. I'll have to go back and look later. Right now I'm off to the gym.

[Nothing]

Regardless of all the stats anyone throws at me, no one can convince me other that I should not be allowed to keep a handgun in my own home. The bottom line is I have that right and just because there is accidental deaths due to handguns, that is not reason enough to take that right away from me. How many accidental deaths were there due to other things such as smoking cigarettes and falling asleep, or drunk driving accidents. No-one is talking about banning smoking totally or banning drinking totally. Dont give me the crap about weapons being maked for killing. Tell me that smoking doesnt kill you. Also, tell me how drinking does anything other than distort your actions enough to have you do something you wouldnt regret later. Im just comparing them, not saying there should be a ban on smoking or drinking. So please dont twist my words around.

I agree that the guidelines for applicants trying to receive these guns could be stiffer, even much more stiffer than it already is, but a ban is completely wrong to me. Most of the people that try to obtain guns the legal way, are actually honest hard working people. Most criminals get them through other means. A ban would only effect the honest people of the USA.

[Capt. Andtennille]

You come across in most of your posts as an errogant ass. Maybe its just me. I like gaming with you and all, but you seem to brush me the wrong way with many of your posts. Dont know if others feel this way like I do, but thats why I probably came across harsh to you. Dont mean to.

You are not alone my friend. Liberals are like that.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

You come across in most of your posts as an errogant ass. Maybe its just me. I like gaming with you and all, but you seem to brush me the wrong way with many of your posts. Dont know if others feel this way like I do, but thats why I probably came across harsh to you. Dont mean to.

You are not alone my friend. Liberals are like that.

Oh yeah, and you guys don't sound arrogant at all. Get over yourselves. When people debate opposite sides of an issue, the other side usually sounds arrogant and self serving. However, it'd be nice if some people could realize that ahead of time and that way they might not feel the need to add petty insults to the debate.

[Nothing]

Get over yourselves.

Thats my point exactly.

[Kleerance]

Regardless of all the stats anyone throws at me, no one can convince me other that I should not be allowed to keep a handgun in my own home.

That's the spirit! Keep debating! There goes this "rational discussion".

[Capt. Andtennille]

Regardless of all the stats anyone throws at me, no one can convince me other that I should not be allowed to keep a handgun in my own home.

That's the spirit! Keep debating! There goes this "rational discussion".

How about this for rational discussion. You folks in other countries can do what your laws allow and we'll follow our constitution. What Nothing was referring to (if I may be so bold) is that our Constitution, the founding document that defines the greatest nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth, guarantees it's citizens the right to keep and bear arms. He and I (and millions of others) are not going to let ourselves or our families become statistics by bowing TO the statistics.



Someone in an earlier post brough up an anolgy of fire detectors. Statistically I'll never need mine but you can be damned sure I HAVE them. Same with my guns.

[Bargod]

People don't kill other people with fire detectors.
Our constitution has been amended many times. Just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean that it can't change.
I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some say guns protect these rights. Some think guns threaten these rights.

[Bargod]

I think I know how to fix this.

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.

How about everyone who wants to own a gun has to join their state's National Guard unit? That would be closer to what's mentioned in the second amendment. I mean, owning a gun isn't being in a "well regulated Militia".

[Stryker9]

It looks to me like we need a pistols only server to go along with
the rifles only server. Then you posters can go on it and shoot
it out with each other....

JIM

[Bargod]

I hope none of my posts sound malicious. I might have made a few smart-alecky remarks, but mostly I'm interested in a good back and forth about gun control. I find it's the best way to get informed about things. I've always been one to debate topics, even if I have to choose a side I don't believe in. I not only find the back and forth of it intellectually stimulating, but I find that I usually don't know nearly as much about a topic as I thought I did. So these types of things expand my knowledge and that always makes me happy.

A perfect example of this is my comment about the National Guard. Having read up a little bit more on the second ammendment, the main arguement about "the right to bear arms" is whether or not this right is solely for people in a militia. Some constitutional scholars say that the way it is written it is clear that the intention was that Americans had the right to bear arms if they were in a Militia, which were deemed needed to supplement an Army (when armies were only raised to wage war). Others have said that the INTENT of the "right to bear arms" was to show that ALL Americans have guns, so don't mess with us (in my words, not the constitutional lawyers, lol). Also, the "right to bear arms" isn't a guaranteed freedom, which is why states can set gun control laws as the deem fit.
So, what this really boils down to is a Supreme Court (not the current one, that's for sure) deciding that "the right to bear arms" is conditional to being in a militia. If they find this true, then gun ownership rights change drastically. Militias are well defined legally and were basically turned into the National Guard with the passage of the National Defense Act (I think, I read this right before work). So, my joke about being in the National Guard was actually close to what many constitutional scholars actually believe (I didn't know this when I made the comment, I just thought it was funny).

So, this is why I like to talk about things like this. I've learned a lot in the past few days that I previously had almost no knowledge of.

[Capt. Andtennille]

I hope none of my posts sound malicious. I might have made a few smart-alecky remarks, but mostly I'm interested in a good back and forth about gun control. I find it's the best way to get informed about things. I've always been one to debate topics, even if I have to choose a side I don't believe in. I not only find the back and forth of it intellectually stimulating, but I find that I usually don't know nearly as much about a topic as I thought I did. So these types of things expand my knowledge and that always makes me happy.

A perfect example of this is my comment about the National Guard. Having read up a little bit more on the second ammendment, the main arguement about "the right to bear arms" is whether or not this right is solely for people in a militia. Some constitutional scholars say that the way it is written it is clear that the intention was that Americans had the right to bear arms if they were in a Militia, which were deemed needed to supplement an Army (when armies were only raised to wage war). Others have said that the INTENT of the "right to bear arms" was to show that ALL Americans have guns, so don't mess with us (in my words, not the constitutional lawyers, lol). Also, the "right to bear arms" isn't a guaranteed freedom, which is why states can set gun control laws as the deem fit.
So, what this really boils down to is a Supreme Court (not the current one, that's for sure) deciding that "the right to bear arms" is conditional to being in a militia. If they find this true, then gun ownership rights change drastically. Militias are well defined legally and were basically turned into the National Guard with the passage of the National Defense Act (I think, I read this right before work). So, my joke about being in the National Guard was actually close to what many constitutional scholars actually believe (I didn't know this when I made the comment, I just thought it was funny).

So, this is why I like to talk about things like this. I've learned a lot in the past few days that I previously had almost no knowledge of.

The problem sir, wth your thesis, is that you are not using the correct definition of "Militia". Here is what the 1930 World Book Encyclopedia said (before all the gun-grabbers got to re-write the books):

MILITIA, mil ish' ah. In its most common application, this term refers to a body of armed citizens. The militia of the United States is made up of all able-bodied male citizens, and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention of becoming (sic) citizens, who are not under eighteen or over forty-five years of age. All such persons are liable to conscription in time of war, with the exception of certain Federal and state officials, workmen in armories, arsenals, etc., and members of specified religious sects. The militia is subdivided into the National Guard, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia, the latter consisting of the great body of unenlisted citizens.

So you see, we ARE the miltia. Besides, the milita portion of that statement is not a requirement. Take the next sentence as an example:

A well regulated media, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear opinions, shall not be infringed

Surely you would not take that to mean that you can't have or express an opinion unless you are part of the established media. Same thing with arms and militias.

In any event, the U.S. Constitution is designed to limit the power of GOVERNMENT, it does not grant powers to citizens because those come from God. From the Declaration of Independance:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[Nothing]

Hey Capt. We are on the same wavelength man. Great post.

[Capt. Andtennille]

Hey Capt. We are on the same wavelength man. Great post.

Thanks and Dittos!!

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

I hope none of my posts sound malicious. I might have made a few smart-alecky remarks, but mostly I'm interested in a good back and forth about gun control. I find it's the best way to get informed about things. I've always been one to debate topics, even if I have to choose a side I don't believe in. I not only find the back and forth of it intellectually stimulating, but I find that I usually don't know nearly as much about a topic as I thought I did. So these types of things expand my knowledge and that always makes me happy.

A perfect example of this is my comment about the National Guard. Having read up a little bit more on the second ammendment, the main arguement about "the right to bear arms" is whether or not this right is solely for people in a militia. Some constitutional scholars say that the way it is written it is clear that the intention was that Americans had the right to bear arms if they were in a Militia, which were deemed needed to supplement an Army (when armies were only raised to wage war). Others have said that the INTENT of the "right to bear arms" was to show that ALL Americans have guns, so don't mess with us (in my words, not the constitutional lawyers, lol). Also, the "right to bear arms" isn't a guaranteed freedom, which is why states can set gun control laws as the deem fit.
So, what this really boils down to is a Supreme Court (not the current one, that's for sure) deciding that "the right to bear arms" is conditional to being in a militia. If they find this true, then gun ownership rights change drastically. Militias are well defined legally and were basically turned into the National Guard with the passage of the National Defense Act (I think, I read this right before work). So, my joke about being in the National Guard was actually close to what many constitutional scholars actually believe (I didn't know this when I made the comment, I just thought it was funny).

So, this is why I like to talk about things like this. I've learned a lot in the past few days that I previously had almost no knowledge of.

The problem sir, wth your thesis, is that you are not using the correct definition of "Militia". Here is what the 1930 World Book Encyclopedia said (before all the gun-grabbers got to re-write the books):

MILITIA, mil ish' ah. In its most common application, this term refers to a body of armed citizens. The militia of the United States is made up of all able-bodied male citizens, and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention of becoming (sic) citizens, who are not under eighteen or over forty-five years of age. All such persons are liable to conscription in time of war, with the exception of certain Federal and state officials, workmen in armories, arsenals, etc., and members of specified religious sects. The militia is subdivided into the National Guard, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia, the latter consisting of the great body of unenlisted citizens.

So you see, we ARE the miltia. Besides, the milita portion of that statement is not a requirement. Take the next sentence as an example:

A well regulated media, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear opinions, shall not be infringed

Surely you would not take that to mean that you can't have or express an opinion unless you are part of the established media. Same thing with arms and militias.

In any event, the U.S. Constitution is designed to limit the power of GOVERNMENT, it does not grant powers to citizens because those come from God. From the Declaration of Independance:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If one were to be literal then, women do not have the guaranteed right to bear arms at all, nor do men over 45. Isn't that correct?