Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 19:06:47 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs.missouri^StopSpam^.edu
|
Viewed:
|
779 times
|
| |
|
|
Jeff Stembel wrote:
>
> It says: "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."
>
> Now, what is a militia?
Why does it matter? The first half of it is merely a justification for
the second which is direction on what rights are granted to (actually
affirmed for) whom.
> Members of said military force are allowed to keep
> weapons. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't National Guardsman and
> Reservists keep their weapons at home?
No.
> If it is read to mean any citizen can keep arms (notice it doesn't say
> firearms),
That's right, they didn't want to limit it to any particular kind of
arms, so they used the broadest term available.
> then they can be called apon to go to war for the country and they
> must attend training (well regulated) probably similar to what Reservists and
> Guardsman attend.
It doesn't say that. The idea is that if everyone has arms at home,
they will be well-regulated because they'll be able to shoot. That's
not necessarily true today, but it's still what it meant to the authors.
> Think about this: Has the NRA *ever* stated the entire second amendment? No,
> of course not, because if they did, people would think "Hey, what is with this
> Militia thing? Maybe they're wrong?"
How would the NRA state something? It's a large organization, not an
organism with a mouth. If print is good enough, why don't you send me
your address and I'll mail you at least five different NRA publications
with the entirety of the second in print and being referred to almost
worshipfully. In addition to your claims about the NRA's stance being
wrong, your conclusion about why is wrong too. Twofold actually.
First, you are completely missing the boat on the meaning, and second
because the NRA mostly addresses its members who already buy in.
> > If the government deems is necessary to take away that amendement,
> > what's to stop them from taking away the first amendment, or the
> > fifth amendment? Nothing.
>
> All amendments have limitations. Why should the second amendment be different?
Constitutional amendments shouldn't have any limitations that aren't
built into the verbiage of the amendment. What are the limitations on
the third? The fourth? The sixth? Or the seventh, the eighth, the
ninth, tenth, eleventh, etc.?
> A revolver should be all that is necessary for
> protection,
From whom?
> > If I infringe on YOUR rights, then that's a problem, but if not, why
> > do you want to infringe upon mine?
>
> By your ownership of a gun, you could infringe on my rights of Life, Liberty,
> and the Pursuit of Happiness. Will it happen? Probably not, but at the very
> least, it is a lot easier for to you purposefully or accidentally infringe on
> them.
So, do you figure that it's more likely for someone to infringe on your
rights "purposefully or accidentally" with a gun than with a car? I
know lots of people injured in automobile accidents and only a few
who've been shot.
> Jeff
>
> P.S. In 1990(1) the number of handgun deaths per 100,000 in the US was 21.5.
> Canada was 2.1, and Japan(2) was 0.5. Why is this? Could it be because these
> two countries have much stricter gun control laws than us? Nah, 'cause the NRA
> says gun control doesn't work(3).
"The widespread belief that firearm ownership causes increased violence
is implausible because criminological studies commonly find either no
relationship or a negative one (i.e., that areas with high firearms
ownership suffer less violence than demographically comparable areas
with lower ownership). [19] When studies have found a purportedly
positive association, it is because of failure to take into account the
possibility that high crime levels stimulated purchasing of guns rather
than high gun ownership stimulating, crime. [20] Once again, less than 2
percent of handguns are ever criminally misused.
Interestingly, despite fears that homicide would greatly increase, the
adoption by over half the states of laws under which police must issue
law-abiding, responsible applicants licenses to carry concealed handguns
has not been accompanied by increased homicide. Indeed, adoption of
these laws was accompanied by declines in homicides, and a decline in
other violent crime as well - a finding based on a recent nationwide
study by the University of Chicago's John Lott and David Mustard. [21]"
If you want [19], [20], and [21] I can OCR that page too. This was
taken from pages 34-35 of Kartes' and Kleck's _The Great American Gun Debate_.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) I have been following along with all you guys arguing over this subject (sorry, "debating"). Interesting points from all sides, but of course ultimately it is fruitless - neither side will convince the other to significantly change their (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) It says: "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." Now, what is a militia? According to dictionary.com, militia means "In the widest (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
