| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/27/2004 10:56:20 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Your reply to the second half contradicts your statement in the first half. If the first is true, and that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights' then they shouldn't be something you earn over time (which you can do) or something that can be taken away (which they can be)
As a result, the rights you refer to are actually a privilege, of either birth or later legal process and are dependant on your continued good behaviour, and can be granted and removed, just like any other privilege. You may not think so, but those are the facts. |
There is no contradiction in what I said. All law abiding American citizens have the right to bear arms, and that right cannot be taken away. The second amendment states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That means that no federal government, no state government, no city government, no slimy politician or judge can take that right away. Sure, you can say that the right is, “dependant on your continued good behavior,” but if you are convicted of a felony, then you are no longer a law abiding American citizen, are you? When you become a felon, you give up that right.
And, no you cannot earn constitutional rights over time, second amendment or otherwise. Some people are granted American citizenship and the rights that go with it. That is very much a privilege.
--Mick |
The contradiction I believe that Gordon is eluding to is with your statment that there is a big difference between rights and a privilage, however you state that only living in America grants you the "right" of bearing arms.
Originally posted by micknewton:
Are you an American citizen without a felony record? If you are not, then the right doesn't apply to you. |
If indeed living in America gives you that "right" it is then not an inherent right of an individual, but a "privilage" of living in the United States.
A right would be universal to mankind and not subject to national boundries, ethnicities, or citizenship.
Edit: spelling and quote
Message edited by author 2004-05-27 23:04:25. |
|
|
|
05/27/2004 11:36:27 PM · #27 |
Message edited by author 2004-10-20 02:07:30. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 01:01:14 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
|
I know this is going to open a can of worms but here goes. Are you saying that someone who doesn't own a gun is not a citizen? Or are you just quoting from something.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 01:02:46 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I wonder what Jesus Christ would say about the use of guns. |
Do you think he would disapprove of gun ownership? If so, why?
Liberals and liberal "news" media love to point out crimes committed with guns, but fail to run stories where a citizen armed with a gun saved his/her own life or the life of a loved one, or prevented a crime from taking place in the first place.
If you want to read about how guns SAVE American citizen lives, read this:
//home.earthlink.net/~glsimmons7/Extra/NRA/Armed.html
It's a list of short news articles on stuff you will never see on the news because it's positive. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 01:07:47 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Liberals and liberal "news" media love to point out crimes committed with guns, but fail to run stories where a citizen armed with a gun saved his/her own life or the life of a loved one, or prevented a crime from taking place in the first place. |
That might have to do with the fact that there are (in the US) several times more "accidental" deaths (usually kids) and killings by family members of other family members, than there are of citizens defending themselves with guns. It wouldn't surprise me if they are higher by one or two orders of magnitude. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 01:20:24 AM · #31 |
I think if one acknowledges men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, they acknowledge those rights belong to all men.
In another post I mistakenly made a reference to a Federal Act, as the "Empowerment Act". Had I researched a little more before posting I would have realized I was referring to the "Enforcement Act". The era is the mid-to-late 1800's and the KKK is rampant as the Southern states try to prevent the blacks from organizing and voting. The right to bear arms is a key essential element for both the freedom of blacks and most importantly for defense of their lives.
I found the following link that might be of interest. I sure there are many other sources available. I have not read through the entire document, but on the whole it appears accurate and in agreement with other historical texts I have read. No matter what your opinion is of the 2nd Amend., this era of American history provides great insight into both the thinking of the framers and to the evolution of the 2nd Amend. post civil war.
Enforcement Act |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 01:23:12 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Liberals and liberal "news" media love to point out crimes committed with guns, but fail to run stories where a citizen armed with a gun saved his/her own life or the life of a loved one, or prevented a crime from taking place in the first place. |
That might have to do with the fact that there are (in the US) several times more "accidental" deaths (usually kids) and killings by family members of other family members, than there are of citizens defending themselves with guns. It wouldn't surprise me if they are higher by one or two orders of magnitude. |
GeneralE, I'd like to see the study that shows there are "several times more accidental killings" then incidents of defense use. Do you have a link or study (and not a lefty website)?
The fact of the matter is, we don't want to errode our 2nd ammendment right because irresponsible parents choose to own a firearm and at the same time can't (or don't) teach the children respect for firearms. This wasn't an issue 30 years ago, so why is there such a problem now do you think?
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 01:30:34 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
The right to bear arms is a key essential element for both the freedom of blacks and most importantly for defense of their lives. |
Absolutely. That's why the fore-fathers wrote the 2nd Ammendment. Without this right, we are at the mercy of our government and other opposing forces. At this point I don't fear our government, but things can change quickly (like if Kerry becomes pres. :D ) JK, you now what I mean. :p
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 03:40:26 AM · #34 |
I"m not making a judgement about it. I want to know what you think Jesus Christ would say about it using firearms. Would it's use be consistent with Christian values?
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I wonder what Jesus Christ would say about the use of guns. |
Do you think he would disapprove of gun ownership? If so, why?
Liberals and liberal "news" media love to point out crimes committed with guns, but fail to run stories where a citizen armed with a gun saved his/her own life or the life of a loved one, or prevented a crime from taking place in the first place.
If you want to read about how guns SAVE American citizen lives, read this:
//home.earthlink.net/~glsimmons7/Extra/NRA/Armed.html
It's a list of short news articles on stuff you will never see on the news because it's positive. |
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 04:03:16 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That might have to do with the fact that there are (in the US) several times more "accidental" deaths (usually kids) and killings by family members of other family members, than there are of citizens defending themselves with guns. It wouldn't surprise me if they are higher by one or two orders of magnitude. |
According to the CDC, there were 125 accidental firearm deaths involving children 17 and under in the US for 2001 (capita of 72 million kids nation wide). Unfortunately, the CDC doesn't keep statistics on Justifiable homicide. However, in California alone, there were 29 justifiable homicides by private citizens in 2001 (capita 35 million residents). I couldn't find any statistics for firearm related self defense with non-lethal results.
Other interesting stats:
In 2001, more children 17 and under died in falls (155) then from accidental gunshot wounds(125). There were 1,037 accidental drownings and 4,911 motor vehicle deaths for the same age group.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 04:47:35 AM · #36 |
Definition of "justifiable homicide:"
"A non-criminal murder, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, may be called justifiable homicide in some cases. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, or murder. The victim's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past would generally not be considered justifiable, although in some cases such a crime is classed as being justifiable due to the impossibility of finding a jury who would convict under the case's circumstances. In cases of self-defense, there must have been no other way out for the defendant, or it is not justifiable. Pre-emptive self-defense, cases in which one kills another because they suspect the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal, no matter how likely it is that they were right. Justifiable homicides are always initially assumed to be criminal until the evidence warrants a change, as justifiable homicide is one of the most common defenses for homicides both justified and criminal. Justifiable homicide is a legal grey area, and there is no real legal standard for a homicide to be considered justifiable. The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the victim was clearly likely to kill an innocent if the defendant did not kill them."
Article here
I"m wondering why this is not applied to the Bush administration. The war in Iraq was stated to be "pre-emptive" for fear that Sadaam Hussein was a threat to the US and the rest of the world. It clearly states: "Pre-emptive self-defense, cases in which one kills another because they suspect the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal, no matter how likely it is that they were right. Justifiable homicides are always initially assumed to be criminal until the evidence warrants a change, as justifiable homicide is one of the most common defenses for homicides both justified and criminal."
I guess this is why the US is against the International Criminal Court. A pre-emptive war they undertook and now have no evidence for their case. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 05:17:24 AM · #37 |
| The Ten Commandments: THOU SHALT NOT MURDER |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 05:55:03 AM · #38 |
"More than 200 million guns are in circulation in the US today," he said. "Between one third and one half of all households own at least one. Every day in the US an average of 87 people, 12 of them children, die as a result of gun wounds, a figure which is rapidly approaching the rate of deaths through car accidents."
An excert from this article. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 06:00:25 AM · #39 |
Are people for or against waiting periods and background checks prior to purchase of a firearm? And why?
Message edited by author 2004-05-28 06:00:52. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 07:59:56 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The Ten Commandments: THOU SHALT NOT MURDER |
Self defense is not murder!
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
"More than 200 million guns are in circulation in the US today," he said. "Between one third and one half of all households own at least one. Every day in the US an average of 87 people, 12 of them children, die as a result of gun wounds, a figure which is rapidly approaching the rate of deaths through car accidents." |
Myth: 12/13 children are killed each day by guns. (gun facts, Guy Smith).
Fact: Adults included – This "statistic" includes “children” up to age 19 or 24, depending on the source. Since most violent crime is committed by males ages 16-24, these numbers include adult gang members dying during criminal activity (incidentally, ‘child’ is defined by Webster as a person between birth and puberty, typically 13-14 years).
Fact: Criminals are included - 70% of these deaths are adults, age 17-20, involved in gang warfare. Half of the juveniles killed are involved in gang activity at the time of their deaths, often involved in drug related firefights.
Fact: Suicides and criminals included - These numbers include criminal activities and suicides. As suicides make up more than ½ of all gun deaths, the number drops even further, to about 1.3 children a day.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Are people for or against waiting periods and background checks prior to purchase of a firearm? And why? |
Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."
Also, the miliatia, non militia argument is asinine. Ever wonder why liberals think all but the second amendment deserve to be translated into todays language?
The Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the se curity of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In contrast to other portions of the Constitution, this Amendment contains no qualifiers, no "buts" or "excepts." It is a straightforward statement affirming t he people's right to possess firearms.
The perception that the Second Amendment guarantees a "collective right" or a "right of states to form militias" rather than an individual right is a wholly inaccurate 20th-century invention. Historically, the term "militia" refers to the people at large, armed and ready to defend their homeland and their freedom with arms supplied by themselves (U.S. v. Miller, 1939). Federal law (Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code) states:
The militia at the time of writing the second amendment (in the US) was ALL able-bodied males at least 17 years of age.
The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons.
Message edited by author 2004-05-28 08:05:01.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 08:15:57 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That might have to do with the fact that there are (in the US) several times more "accidental" deaths (usually kids) and killings by family members of other family members, than there are of citizens defending themselves with guns. It wouldn't surprise me if they are higher by one or two orders of magnitude. |
HOGWASH, You will find no factual studies that prove this!
Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S.122 For example, compared to accidental death from firearms, you are:
• Twice as likely to suffocate on a swallowed object
• Seven times more likely to be poisoned
• 10 times more likely to die falling
• And 31 times more likely to die in an automobile accident
Also, in the anti gun studies that do show that say handguns are say 30% more likely to kill a family member: Well those staticstics count things like suicide and justifiable homicide!
Message edited by author 2004-05-28 08:18:05.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 08:33:49 AM · #42 |
| President Bush made a case for pre-emptive war against Iraq and so after the invasion by the US military many people were killed (both sides). Does that come under the category of "justifiable homicide?" |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 08:36:12 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
President Bush made a case for pre-emptive war against Iraq and so after the invasion by the US military many people were killed (both sides). Does that come under the category of "justifiable homicide?" |
It just might, but lets not change the subject...
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 08:41:47 AM · #44 |
Isn't the topic use of firearms for purposes of self defense and protection? I thought the war in Iraq would be applicable.
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
President Bush made a case for pre-emptive war against Iraq and so after the invasion by the US military many people were killed (both sides). Does that come under the category of "justifiable homicide?" |
It just might, but lets not change the subject... |
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 08:45:32 AM · #45 |
The debate at hand is civilian use or ownership of guns and the myths that the media and the anti-gun lobby have made up and try to impress upon people; not justified military use of them during a global war on terrorism.
Message edited by author 2004-05-28 08:46:23.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 09:42:20 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I wonder what Jesus Christ would say about the use of guns. |
Actually he said in the Gospels "....get a sword. If you do not have a sword, then sell your cloak and buy one..." for surely the the day is coming.......
Jesus was not against "arms" possession and he certainly is pro-choice, as each person must CHOOSE on whether they accept his teachings or not. According to the scriptures, "salvation" is a choice that one makes upon the acceptance of "the messiah" as their savior.
But I leave it up to each to choose for themselves.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 09:47:12 AM · #47 |
I was shooting an air rifle at some targets and got my eye too close to the scope. I now have a nice big lump on my head :P They do more harm than good!
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 09:54:20 AM · #48 |
Konador,
Many tools require proper training to use them correctly. Camera systems is one that comes to mind. Your unfortunate event with the scope is actually common, sometimes referred to as stock creep, where the shooter creeps closer to the scope not realizing the for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, where in the "recoil" sends the scope into the eye socket. Some very serious injuries have occurred that way. Many requiring multiple stitches. For seasoned rifleman it is an embarrassment for them to get "scope eye". But virtually all have had it at least once. Some lessons are easier to learn the hard way.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 10:05:11 AM · #49 |
What "day" was Jesus talking about, the coming of the Messiah? If so, what does that have to do with "getting a sword?"
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I wonder what Jesus Christ would say about the use of guns. |
Actually he said in the Gospels "....get a sword. If you do not have a sword, then sell your cloak and buy one..." for surely the the day is coming.......
Jesus was not against "arms" possession and he certainly is pro-choice, as each person must CHOOSE on whether they accept his teachings or not. According to the scriptures, "salvation" is a choice that one makes upon the acceptance of "the messiah" as their savior.
But I leave it up to each to choose for themselves. |
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 10:24:15 AM · #50 |
Actually, my mistake. the sixth commandment is: Thou Shall Not KILL
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The Ten Commandments: THOU SHALT NOT MURDER |
Self defense is not murder!
|
|
|
