Tuesday, January 29, 2013

"A Well Regulated Militia . . ."

Jack Camwell 2016!!!
I have noticed in the past few weeks that there as been some contention on the interpretation of what the Founders meant by "a well regulated militia," and its purpose.  I decided to consult my personal copy of the Federalist Papers to see what the framers of the Constitution meant.

Here is what I found.  I will present to you the quotes, and I'll leave you to interpret them how you want.  You can see my interpretation of the quotes over at FT's blog.

From Federalist #28, "A National Army and Internal Security," -- Hamilton:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense . . ."
And from Federalist #29, "Regulation of the Militia," also Hamilton:

"If there be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of reeiveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants . . . and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed peoples?"

What say you?  I don't want this to turn into a god damned internet cock fight.  I want this to be an actual discussion about the meaning of the words of those who actually wrote the Constitution.  For those of you who may be unfamiliar, the Federalist Papers were written collectively by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

Their purpose was to pursuade the people of the need of a national government for the prosperity of the nation and for the protection of the people's rights.  In my opinion, if you really know what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution, this is the best explanation one can find.

Discuss.

52 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

Excellent and concise summary.

You also nailed the source of the irrational screaming from the left:

"In my opinion, if you really know what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution, this is the best explanation one can find."

The left studiously ignores what the founders intended, and they even go so far as to deny the philosophy of preexisting individual rights, which is the philosophical underpinnings of that great document.

If they childishly refuse to acknowledge such basic, historic facts, then further debate is futile.

And, the Supreme Court has settled this issue with Heller and McDonald. It is an individual right, and states and localities may not abrogate it, although the ruling also upheld a government's right to regulate fireams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Jersey McJones said...

The SCOTUS did recently change the way the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted throughout most of our history. The "individual right" theory now holds the day, but the court did not prevent all state and local regulation, nor did it restrict the federal government from regulating the related commerce, or from restricting certain types of arms.

There's been a lot of debate over the course of our history about the "well-regulated" clause. What entity is doing the regulating? For what purpose? What or who is being regulated? What or who is the militia?

The court essentially decided in Heller that the "militia" is the armed populace, something most Americans, myself included, agree with today, though that was not always the case. Just a couple generations ago there was strong support for banning all hand guns nationally! Imagine how that would go over today!

The court basically cited the ubiquity of hand guns in America today for their assertion that an outright ban on them went too far.

There still seems to be plenty of constitutional room for more regulation, however.

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

More ignorant blather from Jersey...

"The SCOTUS did recently change the way the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted throughout most of our history. The "individual right" theory now holds the day..."

No they didn't. The reaffirmed what the law has always held. The "individual right" theory has always "held the day."

"...but the court did not prevent all state and local regulation, nor did it restrict the federal government from regulating the related commerce, or from restricting certain types of arms."

Yeah, we know. I said that already.

So, do you have anything useful to add to the conversation?

jez said...

Seems to me that since the 2nd Amendment was drafted two things have happened: widespread gun ownership has, through technological advance, become a greater risk; and public tolerance for risk has diminished.

However good an idea it was in the environment of the 18th century, it's only become a less good idea since.

Jack Camwell said...

Jez,

I've heard the "it was fine then, but not now" argument applied to this. I would argue that the right to self-defense--espoused by the Founders--is something that rings true as much today as it did in 1789.

And Jersey,

To answer your question on who does the regulating: in my reading I took Hamilton's words to say that it should be left up to the states. Hamilton advocated for the ubiquity of arms, but acknowledged the fact that the national government could not possibly regulate such a force. The only feasible solution would be for the individual states to regulate the militia, or the armed populace.

And Hamilton explains what he means by "regulation." By regulation he means a force that is properly trained to be an effective military force should the need arise. I don't think he meant regulation in the way we have come to know it, although my reading of Hamilton might have been amiss (The Federalist Papers are by no stretch to be considered light reading).

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, prior to Heller, the "collective right" theory had long been main interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I'm sorry you disagree with facts of history.

Jack, I'm glad you've taken to reading the FPs, but here's the reality: the constitution also says the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, and as well can regulate anything substantiated by federal law. So, for example, they could pass a law that says that no gun can be transported on an interstate highway, or that the manufacture of guns for interstate or international trade can be regulated as well. It also says the federal government can trump the states if the states pass laws contrary to the interest of the nation or in violation of the constitution.

So that's that.

As for the FPs, I was a history major, am quite familiar with them, and never see anything as "light" as most conservatives do. Rarely is anything as simple, cut and dry as conservatives would like it to be.

JMJ

Ducky's here said...

The matter is settled, we have both a standing army and a national guard.
The STATE is defended which was the intent.

This idea that the people are going to rise up against the tyrannical government is also settled. The stinking cops are militarized and have them out gunned, won't happen.

The argument over the 2nd amendment is as moot as moot can be.

The firearms discussion should move to self defense and point of sale controls which have nothing to do with the virtually irrelevant 2nd amendment.

Anonymous said...

I disagree, the 2nd amendment protects the entire constitution and the other amendments as a last line of defense against corruption.

I seriously doubt the police have the US military outgunned, unless you think a swat team can shoot down an ac130.

Jersey McJones said...

Anon,

The Founders never intended to support a militia that would fight against a Constitutionally elected and dutiful government.

Unless you can show our government is oppressing and disarming us, you can't seriously argue that you are in some threat of your Constitutional freedoms.

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jersey: "Silver, prior to Heller, the "collective right" theory had long been main interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I'm sorry you disagree with facts of history."

Jersey, you are simply full of it. So, did we all used to lock our guns up in armories?

Your claim is ridiculous twaddle. Sure, some anti-gun nutballs may have held such an interpretation, but the law never has.

Jack Camwell said...

"The Founders never intended to support a militia that would fight against a Constitutionally elected and dutiful government."

You did read the quotes I put up there . . . yes?

Anonymous said...

uhh... revolutionary war?

Militia vs Tyranny.

Right... so they just start in bit by bit, piece by piece until we are commies.

Gotcha Jersey.

Bacteria in a bottle. It's 11:59 brother.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, I was simply stating fact. I'm sorry that you find it so easy to simply ignore facts you don't like.

Yes, Jack. I was addressing the anonymous poster, who somehow thinks he "got" me. The idiot apparently thinks our constitutional government is the same as the 18th century British monarchy.

JMJ

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, I was simply stating fact. I'm sorry that you find it so easy to simply ignore facts you don't like.

Yes, Jack. I was addressing the anonymous poster, who somehow thinks he "got" me. The idiot apparently thinks our constitutional government is the same as the 18th century British monarchy.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

No, I meant I understand you, and what you want to happen here.

It's fine, let em do whatever they want, clearly the gubment is uber and in no way abusing anything.

Perfect little innocent angels, they aren't getting kickbacks, no sir. They aren't getting insane with their wasteful agenda, nope.

Everyone is scared shitless about the foreign terrorists getting a nuke, keep taking away our freedom and watch how many domestic terrorists (Read: patriots) you create. Osama won the battle of fear by forcing us to splash the pot with all we got. TSA, war on terror, war on logic. We are such pussies. A sandy hook happens every freakin week over in the conflict hotbeds.

Call me an idiot, that's fine. Don't mind if I put you in the pen with the sheep do ya?

Jersey McJones said...

Silliness.

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

So I was "sleazy" for supposedly insulting your intelligence, but we're supposed to take you seriously when you call us idiots?

Jersey McJones said...

Jack, I did not call you an idiot and I said that I accepted your data.

What more do you want from me? You will never convince me or most other Americans that guns should be treated like friggin' baseball cards, okay???

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

"Jack, I did not call you an idiot"

No, you just called my friend an idiot. You probably should refrain from calling anyone names if you want to be taken seriously.

"You will never convince me or most other Americans that guns should be treated like friggin' baseball cards, okay???"

Of course I won't, because that's NOT my argument.

Here is what my argument actually is and has been all along. The real problem is not gun control: it's violence. The efficacy of gun control varies around the world. Some countries with very loose gun control laws have very low gun-homicide rates. Some countries with very strict gun control laws have astronomically high gun-homicide rates (higher than the US).

What I have been arguing is that the proposals on the table right now--assault rifle bans, limiting magazine size, etc.--will do nothing to stop the violence. THey will only serve as a greater inconvenience to citizens who already obey the law and have no intention of breaking it.

I have also been arguing that most gun control proponents have very little knowledge of guns, have almost no grasp of the actual data available, and are arguing from a position of emotion rather than logic. Their opinions are ill-informed, and the assertion that people like me need to "get emotional" underscore the problem with the issue: emotion.

Many gun control proponents don't want to admit to themselves that in reality, there is very little they can do to stop the madness. They don't care about the facts, because the facts only show them what they don't want to admit: that their ideas won't work and will be a colossal waste of everyone's time and money.

Considering that less than 1% of the gun owner population actually uses their guns (or guns they stole from others) to commit crimes, it seems really REALLY fucking knee-jerk when people seem to think the only solution is to make life harder on the other 99% of gun owners.

That's my argument.

Anonymous said...

My argument mirrors Jackie's. I don't care if you have a private sale of a 10MT fusion bomb, if it is never used, it is never going to hurt anyone.

Also, while I have enormous sympathy for people like gabby giffords, the claim that too many children are dying is laughable... how many children has our military killed. It's only ok when it's non-american children being vaporized. Freedom isn't free, and while that does very little to ease the pain of a Sandy Hook, it is going to have to. How many laws were broken that day? How many fucks exactly were given?

While I agree with the sentiment that these mass murders are perpetrated by the irrational, the answer shouldn't be more irrationality.

There was a car accident yesterday, a single mom and her daughter got killed. Well thats it then, only people who have a world rally championship trophy can drive cars, everyone else has to take the bus driven by Ken Block. They shouldn't sell cars to people who have weak hands. They shouldn't sell cars to people who have a cell phone. They should mandate that people with cars have to pass a reaction test against a professional drag racer.

This is essentially how I view the whole gun control debate. I did nothing to hurt those kids. To dismiss the benefits of responsible gun ownership over the actions of the insane I view as an act of madness itself.

Jersey McJones said...

Jack,

"What I have been arguing is that the proposals on the table right now--assault rifle bans, limiting magazine size, etc.--will do nothing to stop the violence."

I disagree.

"THey will only serve as a greater inconvenience to citizens who already obey the law and have no intention of breaking it."

I disagree.

"I have also been arguing that most gun control proponents have very little knowledge of guns, have almost no grasp of the actual data available, and are arguing from a position of emotion rather than logic. Their opinions are ill-informed, and the assertion that people like me need to "get emotional" underscore the problem with the issue: emotion."

What an insulting and disappointingly stupid thing to say.

"They don't care about the facts, because the facts only show them what they don't want to admit: that their ideas won't work and will be a colossal waste of everyone's time and money."

Bullshit. You are not some fucking genius, Jack. get over yourself.

"Considering that less than 1% of the gun owner population actually uses their guns (or guns they stole from others) to commit crimes, it seems really REALLY fucking knee-jerk when people seem to think the only solution is to make life harder on the other 99% of gun owners."

Oh, boo-fucking-hoo. You want a serious right with no serious responsiblity. I call that LAZY.

JMJ

Curt Fouts said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Then explain to me what a slower gun is, I can't seem to figure that one out and I have shot probably 200 different firearms and personally own everything but a machine gun and a flintlock.

educate me, grand wizard.




Jack Camwell said...

"I disagree." That's wonderful, Jersey. Disagree all you want. You still have yet to provide me any solid evidence that stricter gun control will work. You also have yet to provide me with any measures you think ought to be taken to stop criminals from illegally obtaining guns from other criminals.

I don't claim to be a genius, Jersey. All I've done is shown you HARD DATA that PROVES that gun control does not always work. Take a look at the Brazil data again. Take a look at the Chicago data again. Take a look at the Switzerland data (which shows a country where guns are ubiquitous and less regulated, yet there is lower gun violence).

So let me get this straight: you think that the only thing that gives "serious responsibility" to owning a gun is simply because someone in the government SAYS it carries serious responsibility?

Most gun owners understand the serious responsibility inherent to owning a dangerous weapon. I don't need the government to tell me that it's a serious thing.

Tell me Jersey: if the lack of gun control in this country is the cause of the violence--or at least lends to the violence--then why are there MILLIONS of gun owners who DON'T break the law?

You've already revealed your utter ignorance of guns and gun owners. Anyone who advocates for a ban on "semi-automatic weapons" either wishes to ban virtually all guns in America ****OR**** has no god damn clue as to what constitutes a semi-automatic weapon.

And as for my "disappointly stupid" comment, when will you learn that you lose all credibility once you start insulting people's intelligence? Instead of saying my comment was stupid, how about you actually *gasp* engage in the discussion and tell me why you think I'm wrong?

Do you honestly believe that you are the grand arbiter of all that is true and untrue, and all that is stupid and not stupid?

Now who is coming off as a self-perceived genius?

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jersey: Silver, I was simply stating fact. I'm sorry that you find it so easy to simply ignore facts you don't like."

No Jersey, you spouted an unfounded assertion ("Silver, prior to Heller, the "collective right" theory had long been main interpretation of the 2nd Amendment." )and provided not one scintilla of evidence to back it up.

Of course, you are wrong. People have kept guns in their houses and used them unmolested throughout our nation's history, so your "collective right" absurdity is just that: an absurdity.

You regurgitate derivative information from leftwing propaganda fonts, and Jack is using base data from credible statistics.

No contest. Jack wins this on in a KO.

How can I tell? Jersey sputters, name-calls and lets loose profanities, the sure mark of a loser.

Jersey McJones said...

Jack, the selective employment of statistics without control or context is the argumentative tool of a scoundrel. Stop it. You do not have irrefutable evidence for your position and your debating demands are silly and unscientific.

You guys are just a bunch of gun loons. Grow the fuck up.

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

Slective employment of statistics . . .

That's odd considering I admitted that some countries with strict gun control have less gun homicides (i.e. Japan).

Explain to me how I'm being "selective' when I start talking about gun homicides in America.

Please tell me how I'm being selective when I bring up Chicago and Brazil.

And please tell me how YOU are NOT being selective in your data.

And please, FUCKING PLEASE, explain to me WHY I'm a gun loon--knowing that I don't own one single, solitary fucking firearm.

You know what Jersey, since you're so judgmental of me and my other readers, how about I get a little judgmental about you?

You want to know what your problem is? Your problem is that you are easily swept up in the political flava' of the month. I'm sure you like to think of yourself as a free thinking individual who is above all of that nonsense, but the truth is you're not.

You can use phrases like "cling to your guns," and "war on _____" and say that you DON'T get caught up in the hooplah.

Your problem is that you buy into the old FDR notion of "bold, persistent experimentation." Deep down, in your heart of hearts, you KNOW that the problem in America is NOT the ubiquity of guns. You KNOW that if we pass more gun control, gang shootings--which accounts for MOST gun deaths in America, BTW--will not go down because the gangstas don't buy their guns from the local gun shop.

But you'll try your gun control ideas anyway, in the faint hope that it actually works--and rest assured, the hope is as faint as it can be without disappearing.

This is not Japan or Britain--tiny island nations that can more easily control what comes into their borders. America has a several thousand-mile border with Canada that is largely unrestricted. You can bet your ass that illegal guns come in from Canada every god damned day. And lets not even TALK about Mexico.

You want more gun regulation? How about we punish everyone in the government who even REMOTELY knew about Fast and Furious. Those assholes violated the laws they were supposed to uphold.

You live in a fantasy world in which your actions actually MEAN something.

You're a history guy, so you should know that despite man's best attempts to stop the violence, there is simply no stopping it.

Jersey McJones said...

Jack, I don't know why you're so steeped in this issue, and with such a peculiarly partisan stance. I just don't understand it.

It seems obviously, blatantly, clearly plain to me that smaller clips would prevent some deaths in mass shootings, that the ubiquity of handguns, and guns in general, is probably not a good thing in such a violent society, and that having a responsibility with the right of keeping and bearing an arm is necessary for keeping a well-regulated militia.

I'm still waiting for your reasoned arguments against those points.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

Smaller mags didn't stop columbine from being a blood bath. We tried that before remember? If there is a gun free zone, who cares if I have to reload 6 times, I am the only cat with a gun. Not that it is that big of an issue because the availability of high cap mags to criminals or soon to be criminals is a matter of money, not the law.

"such a violent society" 4.8 per 100,000, with 80% of that being gang fueled. Lowest in 50 years. It seems despite guns being omnipresent, it's getting better. What statistics you cant see is how many innocent lives are saved *by* guns. Criminals shooting criminals shouldn't even be on the stat sheet imo, but whatever.

I am responsible with my guns, you are just assuming I am not? I follow the gun law as much as I disagree with it, as it is not that restrictive, and only mildly annoying. We have a good balance now, why jeopardize it?

It seems obviously, blatantly, clearly plain to me that criminals and murderers don't give a shit about the law, gun or no gun.

"Assault Weapons Ban 2.0" is a feel good measure and not a tangible solution. Rifles kill less people than blunt objects, yet that is what is being targeted. That is like the defensive line turning tail and quintuple teaming a single receiver, while the opposing QB just dumps it off to the tailback. How is that action reasoned response?


Also, still waiting for a definition of slower guns. Sub sonic ammo is about the only thing I can even think of.












Jersey McJones said...

Anonymous, I will not dignify your childish questions with a grown-up answer. You're just another little baby gun loon.

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

"Jack, I don't know why you're so steeped in this issue, and with such a peculiarly partisan stance. I just don't understand it."

That's your problem. You think my stance is "partisan." I'm not a fucking Republican anymore. I don't give two shits about the NRA, or American conservativism, or any of that shit. I don't care that Romney lost. I support gay rights, I'm pro-choice, and I don't think we should leave the poor, elderly, and disabled high and dry. I think we need to end corporatism, punish the banks and all the other frauds who got us into this financial mess, and I don't think raising taxes on the top 5% of Americans would stifle growth.

***THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN FUCKING ISSUE FOR ME***

So please, come to the realization that I am ANYTHING but partisan. My position on gun control and gun rights is a position that I've come to out of my own personal research and contemplation. I don't watch Fox News. Hell, I don't watch any news. My opinions are my own. There are a lot of people who share my opinions and sentiments, and perhaps many of them do so because Bill O'Reilly told them so. But that's not the case with me.

"It seems obviously, blatantly, clearly plain to me that smaller clips would prevent some deaths in mass shootings . . ."

That's because you know very, very little about guns. Do you know how fast I can reload a mag on an M-16 (that is the military equivalent of the AR-15)? 5 seconds. 5 seconds is probably considered slow. Do you really think that 5 seconds is going to make a damn bit of difference to, say, a classroom full of children?

Here's something you haven't considered. What if Adam Lanza brought a SHOTGUN instead of a Bushmaster? A 12 guage loaded with buckshot. Totally legal, and even with the gun control proposals will continue to be legal. Just 6 rounds of buckshot at close range, in a closed room like that, would have razed that entire classroom. 6 rounds of buckshot would have done the same--if not more--damage as that damn Bushmaster.

And let's pretend that we do ban high capacity magazines. Where will they go? Do you think that everyone is just going to go turn them in? No. They'll just hide them in their homes somewhere. And do you think that there won't be a black market for high capacity magazines? Like AHB said, it has never been about legal availability: it's just about how much money you have and are willing to spend.

As I told you, I can go get a completely illegal AK-47 like, THIS WEEK, because I know a guy who knows a guy. It was smuggled into the country, totally under the radar.

"the ubiquity of handguns, and guns in general, is probably not a good thing in such a violent society . . ."

Once again, go look at all the data I've presented to you in the past 3 weeks. Over 80% of gun homicides in this country are attributed to GANG VIOLENCE. These are criminals who get their guns under the table, circumventing the current process, ALREADY. There are more gun homicides committed each year DURING THE COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME.

Current estimates figure that about 45% of the American population owns at least 1 firearm. That's about 150 million people. Considering that about 150 million people own a gun, an over 80% of the gun homicides in the US were committed by criminals and people committing other crimes when the gun homicide occurred, it's actually extremely RARE that a normal, average, everyday and otherwise law-abiding citizen uses his legally owned gun to murder another human being.

Jack Camwell said...

"Anonymous, I will not dignify your childish questions with a grown-up answer. You're just another little baby gun loon."

You won't dignify is "childish" questions because YOU HAVE NO ANSWER.

And once again, why are you resorting to name-calling?

Why is it that I take the time to refute every single thing you say--line item by line item--and you won't even do the same for me?

Jersey, it's clear you're never going to directly answer the many holes we've poked in your logic. You're never going to refute any of the data points that I've brought up. And you'll never actually show me where my logic is flawed. So could you PLEASE just answer me ONE QUESTION:

What is stopping me from getting a hold of my contacts, buying a Armsel Striker (more commonly known as a "Street Sweeper," which is a 30 round DRUM FED semi-automatic shotgun--completely illegal for a civilian to own) and shooting up one of the elementary schools near me? And let's assume that because I'm getting a fat tax refund this year, money is no object. What's stopping me from doing that, Jersey?

Answer me that question, and this debate will be over.

Jack Camwell said...

Hint: It's not the law.

Jersey McJones said...

Jack, I meant "partisan" in the sense that you are entrenched in a particular established position held by the NRA and such.

Anonymous is engaging in silly debating tactics that are beneath me.

The law is stopping you, Jack. The law. If a cop catches you doing that, you'll be arrested. We are a nation of laws. If you break them, and you get caught, then you get arrested. That's the way it works. Some people get away with breaking the law, but "getting away" with some is only temporal thing. You can always still get caught.

Hence the need for more laws and enforcement, sometimes.

JMJ

Jersey McJones said...

Oh, and if you have "contacts" who are dealing in illegal weapons, you should inform your local or state police, Jack. Your association with such criminals may be illegal in and of itself.

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

You think the LAW is stopping me?!

Jersey, I could never, ever bring myself to murder a child--law or no law. I am a sane individual who has compassion for other human beings.

I could never, in my right mind, bring myself to murder another child. If there were no laws, I still could never murder a child. I couldn't even murder another human being and live with myself.

If you legitimately think that the ONLY thing stopping me from killing a bunch of kids is the law, then your perception of reality is truly skewed and completely lost. Would you be able to kill children if there were no penalty to it? I sincerely hope not.

But that was you avoiding the obvious answer. Because you knew that the obvious answer completely negates everything you've been arguing. Unless you think that deep down I'm some sociopath that would have no problem murdering a mass of children, then you cannot legitimately say that the ONLY thing holding me back is the law.

I've cornered you, which is the only logical explanation for you answering that "the law" is the only thing stopping me from murdering children. But we both know you don't think of me as a psychopath. We both know that you think I am, at heart, a good human being that would do no harm to others even if there was no law to punish me from harming others.

And as for the fact that I "know a guy who knows a guy," I wouldn't dream of ratting them out. Why? Because those guys actually have crates full of those incredibly illegal guns. How much chance do you think myself and my family would stand against such an arsenal? Considering I don't even own a gun: zero chance.

Second question: do you really believe that the ONLY thing keeping ME from hurting other people is the LAW?

Do you believe that without the law, I'd be a murdering pscyhopath like Adam Lanza? Mind you, I'm a father to two young children, aged 7 and 4.

There are worse things than being mistaken, Jersey.

Jack Camwell said...

And what we have just witnessed here, folks, is cognitive dissonance.

In the face of evidence that points to the contrary of the subject's belief in reality, the subject makes a statement contrary to what he knows to be true (or most likely to be true) to maintain his reality.

Jersey, unless you believe I am a sociopath that would murder chilidren without compunction if the law was not established to prevent me from doing so, then you have engaged in cognitive dissonance.

Jersey McJones said...

The law is all we have Jack. It may not be perfect, but it's all we got.

And again, stop lying. You haven't proved anything. You just back up what you want to believe with selective little facts and stats and ignore anything to the contrary.

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jersey: "Jack, I don't know why you're so steeped in this issue, and with such a peculiarly partisan stance. I just don't understand it."

It's not about guns, it's about freedom and personal liberties, so of course you wouldn't understand it.

Is there anyone more plonkish and dogmatic that today's ill-named "liberal?"

Jack, you had him in a TKO in the third round. The rest of his blather is just punch-drunk staggering and wild swinging.

It was almost sad to watch how you dismantled him. And when he wouldn't address Anon's well-stated argument, I knew he was done.

Jersey McJones said...

I love the way you guys pat each other on the back. How pathetic.

Silver,

No. It's about you reckless conservatives wanting rights without responsibility. You're like spoiled little children. That why you guys wrecked the economy, got us into stupid wars, and made sure there are hundreds of millions of guns on the streets.

Reckless, irresponsible, spoiled little children.

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

Jersey,

I did NOT ignore any of the information you presented me as a rebuttal to my information. In fact, I actually took the time to analyze what you presented, and I offered a refutation for it.

Just because I reject your information as specious extrapolations does not mean I ignored it.

And no, Jersey, the law is NOT all we have. Did the law stop Adam Lanza from murdering innocent children? Does the law stop the smuggling of illegal weapons?

I will say this to you again: it is not the law that stops me from killing innocent people. ***I*** stop me from killing innocent people, because ***I*** am not an amoral psychopath.

Are you telling me that YOU are an amoral psychopath that would murder children if the law wasn't there to stop you from doing so?

Jack Camwell said...

As for the back patting, I'm sure you've offered me some pats on the back whenever you agree with me and feel as though I've successfully argued against Silver.

"Reckless, irresponsible, spoiled little children."

Why won't you stop name calling? Isn't that "sleazy" and beneath you?

Jersey McJones said...

"Reckless, irresponsible, spoiled little children," was more directed at Silver, Jack. You read the context. You are not a hardcore Republican or conservative as far as I know about you. You seem more circumspect about the issues I brought up than they do. Yet, for some odd reason, you are rabidly partisan on the gun rights thing, and it simply eludes me as to why.

Yes, you present of host of facts and statistics, but when confronted with any other, following that very tact, you dismiss it. For example, if you have a gun in your home, you are far more likely to have a gun-related death in that home than you are if you don't. That's a fact. So, when you assert that dissuading people via regulation of trade and manufacturing will accomplish nothing, it seems so counter-intuitive. Isn't that how markets work?

Then, that intuition takes you to the next interrogative. You discover that smaller clips means more reloading which means more time for targets of mass shootings to disarm their assailant(s).

Then you realized very recently that the Second Amendment was viewed very differently throughout most of our history, the citations from the Federalist Papers aside (and again, selectively chosen). The idea of a well-regulated militia being the common rabble glutted with millions of guns would make sick any one of our Founders. What a stupid, dumb, reckless, irresponsible idea. And here we have it in action.

At some point, we have to start reining in the guns. Not by coercion. Not by force. But by long-term, smart regulation of sales and trade and manufacture.

And there's no reason to disarm the populace. We simply have to make sure that only people who can be responsible with that right should enjoy it.

The right to carry a gun is not God given. Self-protection is rather low on the Christian moral ladder. And only if you are righteous should you assume a God given right anyway. Otherwise you lose that right. Remember, the Second Amendment is really the fourth Amendment right, not the First three rights.

The point being - you are really into this whole gun thing when it seems kinda wacky and arbitrary. Your facts are all well and fine, but countered by other facts that out them in the light, and there are plenty of other facts that discount some of yours as plainly incorrect.

So finally, ALL statistics show that the closer and more regularly you are near a gun, the more likely something bad is going to happen to you or yours.

Guns are easy lethal weapons that in the wrong hands at the wrong time can lead to all sorts of tragedy, and they are ubiquitous to the point of laying around in shoe boxes all over America today, just waiting for some dumb kid, some angry husband, some jealous wife, some bullied kid, some sociopath, some pharmed-up ADHD kid, some guy who thinks the Plutonians have invaded all our minds.

At some point, can we, as grown up, adult, mature, thinking people, come up with some long-term solution to this problem? Because if we just ignore it, we're going to become a Third World Fucking Violent Hellish Cesspool.

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

"So finally, ALL statistics show that the closer and more regularly you are near a gun, the more likely something bad is going to happen to you or yours."

Unless you live in Switzerland, where guns are ubiquitous, yet they have a gun homicide rate much, much lower than the US.

And please tell me how my facts are incorrect, when the facts that I have been using are hard data numbers from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the CDC, and the FBI.

You can't argue against the fact that in 2011 there were approximately 11,000 gun homicides in the US. You also can't argue that in 2011, more people were killed with blunt objects than rifles.

These are the kind of facts I'm using. They're irrefutable. Sure, you can argue with my conclusions, but I'm not saying anything as asinine as "41% of gun deaths could be avoided if guns weren't present."

Silverfiddle said...

"That why you guys wrecked the economy, got us into stupid wars, and made sure there are hundreds of millions of guns on the streets."

Yeah... That was all republicans... No democrat had a hand in any of it... Riiiiight...

If you reall believe that, you are more far gone that I thought.



Silverfiddle said...

" if you have a gun in your home, you are far more likely to have a gun-related death in that home than you are if you don't."

Wow! What a revelation.

If you drive an automobile, you are more likely to die in a car crash than someone who walks everywhere.

You can avoid pool drownings at your home by not owning a pool.

So, you're scraping the barrel so badly now that you're down to tautologies? Sad, Jersey, sad.

Anonymous said...

Jersey, I don't know what to say to you past this. Consider this my final input on the matter.

"If you have a gun in your home, you are far more likely to have a gun-related death in that home than you are if you don't. That's a fact."

Yes it's a fact because it is self-fulfilling prophecy. What about the gun deaths in the homes without guns? how does that work? surely there was a gun in the house at some point in time sneaking around like the boogeyman that just floated in and shot someone in the temple.

If you can't see the difference between that attempt at factual explanation and "Lowest per capita homicide rate in 50 years" then I don't know what to say. Oxygen was present at 100% of all gun deaths. Oxygen is the problem. If we just didn't have any oxygen these guns wouldn't work!

"Isn't that how markets work" Then can you please explain to the rest of us why there is heroin, meth, cocaine, speed, ex, acid, and weed plants a plenty. Why oh why is there illegal drugs without a legit market? Oh that's right, people create a demand for drugs and someone makes a profit supplying that demand.

Moreover reloading a "clip" you can load magazines well in advance. Weight is weight, reload speed is less than a second if you practice. If you think you can close the distance on someone in pistol range in less than a second you sir are the FLASH and should not care about bullets. You are also operating over the assumption that all mags are lower capacity and no higher capacity mags would be available, at any price, in any quantity.

You and that comma in the constitution, Militia separate from the people because the comma is a "pause" in thought. Show me another place where the hacks that spawned the constitution fucked up the phrasing.

"At some point we have to start reigning in the guns", of the illegal motherfuckers going around breaking the LAW please, not me. I am breaking no laws! Can't even enforce the crap you have and now you want more crap to enforce? How exactly do you not see another war on drugs happening with guns? You do agree the war on drugs is bullshit correct?!

What facts counter that more people are murdered by blunt objects than by rifles?! Please let me see this spin doctoring.

So you would rather not have a gun, and gamble on the fact of never needing it, than gamble on the positive benefits of having one if you needed it. I wish I lived where you did, that's all I can say to that. Because of course if the guns are present in a situation, they are going to be used, good or bad.

Long-term grown up solution to this problem. First step is acknowledging the actual problem, which is guns cannot do harm by themselves, they lack the will to act. People are killing other people with guns, at a rate that is very tiny in the big picture, esp once you consider the gang violence aspect. Shitbags killing shitbags, that should be a plus.

You are looking at sandy hook or aurora and saying "Yes, this is the entire country, look" When in reality it's so few people compared to the rest of the country.

I live in a fairly bad area. Not a lot of home invasion type things going on, but there are seedy people doing seedy stuff around here. Brothel down the road a bit, drugs, scams, robberies, rapes, etc. You are singling out the very few people who flip their shit and go renegade, holding that up as a mirror to our country and declaring it a massive widespread problem with only a federal solution.

Again I ask you, why aren't you advocating for less cars? They kill people? Less knives? Less blunt objects? You are trying to convince me that guns ONLY kill the innocent, and that they are not engines of positive force. I don't buy that for a minute. Humans are supplying the good and the bad intentions to firearms. Humans are the problem.

Totally Autonomous said...

"I took Hamilton's words to say that it should be left up to the states."

I'm really bad at keeping up with conversations but from what Jack said
I would like to present the Ohio constitution

"“Municipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.” [http://Ez.com/glbs142]

Whereas:

(A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition."

"a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition."

I would like to point out that if a ban goes through it it already infringing on our rights.

Even though it references state and federal law I was always of a mind that our constitutions dictate the legality of our laws not our laws define our constitution.

Totally Autonomous said...

By the by,

I spent 5 months sleeping with, carrying around and taking a shit with a true assault weapon. The only thing I didn't do with it was shower because I didn't want a ruined weapon on my hands. My self and a large quantity of others were in this situation. The outcome no deaths from assault weapons, Or weapons in general because there were some pistols as well.

Also thank you Anon for pointing out the usage of referring to a magazines as a "Clip" that just shows how Using Jacks words " most gun control proponents have very little knowledge of guns"
Correct terminology goes a long way in an argument.

I'm sure everyone has seen that an Assault rifle was not used in sandy hook. http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495
but 4 hand guns. How would smaller
magazines prevent the number of casulities?

As for jacks statement
"What if Adam Lanza brought a SHOTGUN instead of a Bushmaster? A 12 gauge loaded with buckshot. Totally legal, and even with the gun control proposals will continue to be legal. Just 6 rounds of buckshot at close range, in a closed room like that, would have razed that entire classroom. 6 rounds of buckshot would have done the same--if not more--damage as that damn Bushmaster."

Lanza did not BUY any of the firearms used in the shooting.
He did try to purchase a rifle a few days before and was not able to because of "SURPRISE" Connecticut has stricter regulations and a waiting period for the purchase of firearms.
Also had a shotgun with buck shot and 6 rounds been used There would be more parents morning the loss of their children.

So in regard to the pistols being used, yes 4 semi-automatic weapons were used. Even though the types were not mentioned they were more than likely double action pistols being that they are widely popular with most gun owners.


My 2 cents.
Yes i am a gun buff and yes i don't want restrictions telling me because Ass-hats did something stupid I cant buy an AR-15 but I am also responsible with what i own. There are locks on my weapons and they are stored out of reach of the kids in my house.

The one child that lives here knows what is here and that if he thinks about touching it it will be used on any and all of his video games so he can grasp the magnitude of the destruction they can dish out.
He has seen them operated in a safe manner and when he is old enough he will learn how to maintain and operate firearms in a safe and respectful manor.

(In My Own Opinion)
The number one problem in america today is parents. When you don't expose children to aspects in life and they grow complacent with what they see on tv and video games they think that is the only way to handle things. Take responsibility for your decisions and your childrens upbringing. i can garentee we will have better people in the future and less tragedies like mass shootings to look forward too.

Jack Camwell said...

Well put, TA. Thank you!

Jersey McJones said...

Anonymous, the casual sellers, who are otherwise law abiding citizens, would probably be dissuaded from selling their guns willy nilly if they thought there may be serious consequences. We need traceable transactions on gun sales. Why do you guys have a problem with that? We have to stop the flow of the guns onto the streets where we can.

And then...

How's about less focus on those drugs you mentioned, and more on straw purchasing next?

Those are just two things, that have no bearing on responsible gun owners, we could do to begin to stem the flow.

JMJ

Curt Fouts said...

Mr. McJones,

FYI, here is what happens when a gun is used in commission of a crime:

Law enforcement finds out, through records, when it was originally purchased and who bought it. ATF contacts that person, who then tells them who he sold it to, and so on.

So while I have no problem with increased background checks, all guns are not now untraceable.