Skip to main content

Poll

Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to own, carry, & use Firearms to defend their own lives, & the lives of their family & friends?

  • Absolutely Yes!
  • I thinks so.
  • I don't think so.
  • Definitely No!
  • My name isn't String, so let me have a icy cold beer so I can ponder the options...

Topic: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms? (Read 151429 times)

Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

"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."

Do you know the history behind those words?

Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to own, carry, & use Firearms to defend their own lives, & the lives of their family & friends?

Was the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution created to just protect a Citizen's right to target shoot & hunt, or was it created so that all Citizens could defend their Right to be free from a Tyrannical & Abusive Government --- along with having the ability to target/sport shoot & hunt as simply an added bonus -- merely a by product?

Can Governments legislate 'Gun Control' effective enough to completely protect their Citizens from deranged shooters & criminals, hell bent on killing the innocent & disobeying all law?

If not, do Ordinary Citizens have a 'Natural Right' to self-defend -- to protect their own lives, & the lives of their loved ones?

Will American Citizens, or any citizens of any country for that matter,  be safer & better off if only the Government & Law Enforcement had Firearms? Does recent History (within the past 100 years or so) show this to be fact?

What do you think, & most importantly ----   why?

This thread was created as a continuation of a thread in the old MyOpera Forum, which will be closing March 1st., 2014

  • Last Edit: 2014-12-15, 06:38:42 by SmileyFaze

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1525
And nutjoblanders boast about being the greatest country in the world?? Not surprised mental medical world is such big business. If it isn't the population who are gun mad so too are many of what are called "police."
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • Mr. Tennessee
  • [*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1526
"If it isn't the population who are gun mad so too are many of what are called "police.""
WHAT!

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1527
Uh-oh, truth can hurt.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • jax
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1528
So can grammar.

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1529
Oh dear. What a pompously snooty comment.  :irked:

Anyway this subject continued for ages on Opera with us then the same damn thing has happened here. It is going to go round and round for ever. Time it was ditched.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1530


That's right. Forget that part about well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of the state. That part never existed.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1531
Maybe it's on the other shoulder.

(Yeah... who am I kidding. :) )

  • SmileyFaze
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1532



What's on that patch, & above, is the second of two (2) complete, & distinct, clauses within the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, clearly defined for us by the United States Supreme Court in their landmark decision in D.C. vs Heller



Source:     MIC     
Quote
A common misconception about the Second Amendment is that it only protects arms for the militia, or in modern day, the National Guard or other government-organized military group.

This is simply untrue; a belief arising from ignorance about the language used in the Second Amendment and understanding its meaning as it was understood originally when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court helps us understand the original intent of the Second Amendment and the words used in their historical context.

In the landmark Supreme Court case, D.C. vs Heller, the court explains that all citizens are the militia; the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like every other right protected in the Bill of Rights, and is independent of membership in any organized group or military unit.

The Second Amendment reads: "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."

There are two clauses that comprise the Second Amendment, an operative clause, and a prefatory clause.

Operative clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The operative clause is the actual protected right; kind of the 'meat and potatoes.' The court wrote: "1. Operative Clause. a. 'Right of the People.' [used 3 times in Bill of Rights] ... All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." (p.5). 

Prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

The prefatory clause is the lead-in that "announces a purpose" for the operative clause.  The court stated: "The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms"(Heller law syllabus p.1).

The court also stated: "The Amendment could be rephrased, 'Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'" (Heller law syllabus p.3, emphasis added).

Note: "syllabus" in law briefs is not like a college course summary, but "a short note preceding the text of a reported case that briefly summarizes the rulings of the court on the points decided in the case."

The Militia is all of the people

The court states: "It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia" (p.20), adding "Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people" (p.7).

It's clear from the court's ruling regarding the relationship between the prefatory and operative clause (p.25) that the militia meant that all of the people were armed.

"The 'militia' comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved" (Heller law syllabus, p.2, emphasis added).

"Keep arms" was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else" (p.9).

Congress creates the Army and Navy, but not the already existent militia

The court states that while Congress is given the power in Article I of the Constitution to create the Army and the Navy, it may simply organize the militia because it already existed:

"Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create, the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power ... to organize "the" militia, connoting a body already in existence," (p.23).

Second Amendment doesn't mean any organized military unit

We find on page 11: "In numerous instances, 'bear arms' was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia," adding further that, "It is clear from those formulations that 'bear arms' did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit" (p.11-12).  Fun fact: The National Guard, as it exists today, wasn't created until 1903.

So we see that at the time of its writing, it was clearly understood that the Second Amendment protected the right of all citizenry to have and carry arms. Our ignorance of the terminology, and perhaps the phrasing of the two clauses has clouded this truth, so obvious to our Founders. The Second Amendment means all of us, since we are all the militia, and in no way means only an organized military unit or the National Guard.



I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you........






  • Last Edit: 2018-10-19, 07:44:23 by SmileyFaze
     In times of universal deceit, telling the honest truth is a revolutionary act.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1533
Nonsense is not worth understanding, but thanks for explaining. It is reassuring to see you stand firm on the side of nonsense.

Edit: The pattern of nonsense - you are ignoring the first part. Then you claim to be explaining the first part, even though you only talk about "militia" and not "the security of a free state". As soon as the so-called explanation is done, you promptly get back to ignoring the *entire* first part, both militia and the security of a free state.

To stoop to your level, I should ignore the entire second part. Then of course you would whine that the second part was getting ignored. You would never notice that you were being served your own rules of the game.

But I will not stoop to your level. You can keep your nonsense.
  • Last Edit: 2018-10-22, 09:06:12 by ersi

  • Barulheira
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Bear arms
Reply #1534
Bear arms? If you prefer so...


  • Mr. Tennessee
  • [*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1535
The first time I ran into a man with a gun was in a little restaurant. He had a holster with in a revolver. My first thought was to get the hell out of the place.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPlJxJwsRmJJKEHZLIyO9e6ErOolxvfct0hEz5_y8fTGtXXE5InQ

  • SmileyFaze
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1536
Over 30 U.S. States now permit "Open Carry (link)" ,  where one can carry a firearm in the open (as opposed to concealed), usually without a license or a special permit.  :yikes:

That said, according to the Hysterical-Left, this would mean daily "Wild West" type shootouts all over the USA, with unimaginable death counts.....including Grandmothers, Grandfathers, Women, & Children.

The Anti-Gun Leftist MSM would be ecstatic, there would be a feeding frenzy --- anything to help their Anti-Gun Agendas, & it would be splashed across every front-page --- lead story material on every news broadcast......not only in America, but all over the entire world - day in, day out!!!!

Well Anti-Gunners......why are violent firearm crimes trending down across the USA over the last 20 years, & still going in that direction?

Aren't more guns supposed to equate to more crime?

According to the    Washington Post    there are over 390 MILLION Firearms in Civilian hands in America today.......way more than there were 50 years ago.......way more than 25 years ago......way more than 15 years ago......way more than 5 years ago.

Where is all this Violent Gun Crime you fellas have predicted over the past 50 years?



Surely, you Anti-Gunners can easily explain this trend.......




An Armed Society is a Polite Society


  • Last Edit: 2018-10-26, 23:32:26 by SmileyFaze
     In times of universal deceit, telling the honest truth is a revolutionary act.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1537
In terms of composition, design, elegance and harmony, the above post is a very bad taste one.
Not to speak about content, it's even worst.
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1538
All posts by SF are like that. His posts are, without exception, total nonsense and he highlights it with bright colours and magnified font sizes. A normal person has meaningful dots to connect in his post. SF never has it.

Let's generously suppose that gun-related crimes have been trending down for over a quarter of century in US. Then we see this (firearm kills per 100,000 per year):

Country Year Total Homicides Suicides Unintentional
United Kingdom 2011 0.23 0.06 0.15 0.00
United States 2016 11.96 4.62 7.10 0.15

Well, good if this has been trending down in US, but it is still nowhere near a half-civilised country. Or are these anti-gun hysterical leftist statistics?

  • ensbb3
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1539
Where is all this Violent Gun Crime you fellas have predicted over the past 50 years?
In the news paper?

I mean let's not pretend there's not some sort of problem.

  • SmileyFaze
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1540
Where is all this Violent Gun Crime you fellas have predicted over the past 50 years?
In the news paper?

I mean let's not pretend there's not some sort of problem.

Seriously, if you remove the every-day criminal & gang-banger activity, what do you actually have left???  None to speak of................especially not the apocalyptic predictions raised by the gun-grabbin' Left that started about ±100 million firearms ago. If you listened to them we all should be knee deep in rotting, bullet ridden corpses by now!!!        




     In times of universal deceit, telling the honest truth is a revolutionary act.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1541
That gun culture is just sorry to watch. In addition to all the mass shootings,

11-year-old shoots grandmother, kills self after refusing to clean his room, poice say https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/11/04/mcso-11-year-old-shoots-grandmother-yvonne-woodard-before-killing-self/1887437002/

According to SF, the problem is that grandmother did not have a gun handy. "We need more guns so that the good guys can shoot first!" or something.

  • ensbb3
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1542
According to SF, the problem is that grandmother did not have a gun handy. "We need more guns so that the good guys can shoot first!" or something.

Clearly grandma had a gun handy. Too handy. Focusing on the more ignorant side of this, I am all for stricter laws for people who own guns but don't bother to secure them. Capital punishment isn't what I'd prescribe, but is often in such cases a self imposed punishment. Given gun culture and natural selection, an eleven year-old shouldn't find everything they need to enact such a deed. But are definitively the age to start learning the consequences.

People are dumb. Removing guns is only accepting it as the way things have to be. I don't agree that it has to be that way. If it takes idiots with guns to show that people don't have to be idiots, so be it. There's a long history of dying over stupid shit. May the future do better. 

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1543
People are dumb. Removing guns is only accepting it as the way things have to be.
Why does it seem to gun-rightists that gun-control proponents want to remove guns and take guns away? In what other country have guns been taken away from people (as distinguished from regulated just like e.g. driver's licences are regulated)?

Access to guns is regulated everywhere in the world, even in armies. Well, particularly in armies! Moreover, it says "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment of the U.S. constitution. Gun-rightists always had the  option to be sensible on this point, but for some reason they prefer to be insane about it.

  • ensbb3
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1544
Why does it seem to gun-rightists that gun-control proponents want to remove guns and take guns away?

Perhaps because I'm not that. So if you're saying I'm not willing to go far enough without any context for what gun control is to you then I assume you only have one way to go. The way many countries have gone. Ban them.

I'm not @SmileyFaze but I can at least respect his opinion. I'd do the same with you. Mine is well documented. I'd go over it again with proper cause to.
  • Last Edit: 2018-11-15, 10:11:33 by ensbb3

  • ensbb3
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1545
it says "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment
Get over this, though. There's precedence from the Supreme Court that it's not the end qualifier. That too shall not be infringed. Well regulated militias don't just appear so you can't stop the effort. It's a clarification. Nothing in the bill of rights is meant to be restrictive.    

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1546
Nothing in the bill of rights is meant to be restrictive.
Yet everything in the bill of rights *is* restricted, starting with libel and defamation laws restricting free speech. Why should it be any different with gun rights? Applying the gun-rightist argumentation with consistency, they should maintain that driver's licence regulation means that cars are taken away from the people.

  • ensbb3
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1547
Why should it be any different with gun rights?
It's not. Me and Smiley have argued this one out. He even called me a Euro-socialist once. :P

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1548
I see. SF wins, as usual. KO by name-calling.

  • ensbb3
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Reply #1549
No idea what that means.

I invited you to a debate. Rejection noted. Again.