Gun Control

[commonsense]

Suppose some obscure country has a constitution which permits the shooting of schoolchildren. Wouldn’t civilized countries condemn this as a human rights violation, no matter what their constitution enshrines or permits, no matter how sacrosanct gun ownership may be? Wouldn’t civilized countries condemn such incidents as war crimes if perpetrated during armed conflicts?

[henry quirk]

many of those quotes go back to the idea of a militia...

Indeed. Here's some (from my post above)...

-----

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.”
-Richard Henry Lee, Gazette (Charleston), September 8 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
– Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
-Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
-Zachariah Johnson, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 25, 1788

-----

...to contrast against your own selection. There was, I'll think you'll agree, some differing views on what exactly constitutes a militia. So how are we to take the 2nd? Personally, I find the P &T assessment to be the cleanest and most accurate. But, even if we take militia to mean, as you quote, "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency" it's clear the Founders intended Americans be armed and neither formally or informally to be under the control of government on any level.

do you actually believe the founding fathers would endorse private citizens buying and the selling bazookas or tanks or grenades or mortar rounds or claymore mines, or artillery pieces if they were all around back then?

I imagine some would have been, yes. Others, no.

Please, you tell me what "well-regulated" means if not...well regulated?

As I say, I take P's & T's assessment as the most accurate. That, of course, conflicts with the view of militia offered by some of the Founders.

my point revolves around the fact that both sides are able to make reasonable arguments for and against them.

Yes, I'll agree: within a context of what were the Founders' intentions on the 2nd, yes, reasonable arguments can be made by all sides.

you don't give a rat's ass about anyone's opinion that isn't entirely in sync with yours.

This is true.

Again, as always, it's "your way or the highway".

That's your take. Mine is, as always, if I'm not demonstrably, unjustly, deprivin' you of life, liberty, or property, then my way is not your business, and, if you're not demonstrably, unjustly, deprivin' me of life, liberty, and property, then your way, is not my business.

Even if it results in another Ruby Ridge.

Only way such a thing happens, with me, is if folks like yourself decide your way must be my way.

Henry on the other hand seems quite willing to extend the right to buy and sell handguns and rifles to the right to buy and sell what many construe to be weapons of mass destruction.

It's not for me to extend anything. Another man's property is his business, not mine. It becomes my business only when he uses his property to attempt deprive me of my life, liberty, and property.

I wrote:

I also support 3D printing and DIY black- and gun-smithing (why buy when you can make?)

You:

And 3D printing of bazookas or tanks or grenades or mortar rounds or claymore mines, or artillery pieces? How about chemical and biological weapons...dirty bombs?

Yep.

God and No God men and women who encompass life, liberty and property in hundreds and hundreds of conflicting ways.

They don't. As indviduals, each and every one, views his life, his liberty, his property as his, full stop.

Many, unfortunately, by way of a great many of those traditions, have found a justification for deprivin' other folks (but never themselves) of life, liberty, or property.

[promethean75]

You're obsessive interests in firearms is noted, Henry Quirk. We're not gonna let another Ruby Ridge happen so I'm red flagging u.

[Skepdick]

You're obsessive interests in firearms is noted, Henry Quirk. We're not gonna let another Ruby Ridge happen so I'm red flagging u.

I am curious if you are aware that in the legal debacle following Ruby Ridge the FBI, ATF and a whole bunch of other USA government agencies were found to be acting illegally and beyond their mandate.

As in are you aware that the government was ultimately found to be in the wrong and the gun-ho Weaver family was acting lawfully?

To simplify my question: do you believe in the rule of law?

[commonsense]

You're obsessive interests in firearms is noted, Henry Quirk. We're not gonna let another Ruby Ridge happen so I'm red flagging u.

I am curious if you are aware that in the legal debacle following Ruby Ridge the FBI, ATF and a whole bunch of other USA government agencies were found to be acting illegally and beyond their mandate.

As in are you aware that the government was ultimately found to be in the wrong and the gun-ho Weaver family was acting lawfully?

To simplify my question: do you believe in the rule of law?

Seriously, what’s the point you are making with this?

[Skepdick]

You're obsessive interests in firearms is noted, Henry Quirk. We're not gonna let another Ruby Ridge happen so I'm red flagging u.

I am curious if you are aware that in the legal debacle following Ruby Ridge the FBI, ATF and a whole bunch of other USA government agencies were found to be acting illegally and beyond their mandate.

As in are you aware that the government was ultimately found to be in the wrong and the gun-ho Weaver family was acting lawfully?

To simplify my question: do you believe in the rule of law?

Seriously, what’s the point you are making with this?

promethean75's post seems to imply that the way to prevent another Ruby Ridge from happening is to have less people like Henry Quirk e.g less people with "obsessive interests in firearms". They cause trouble them folk!

At no point had it occurred to promethean75 that another way to prevent another Ruby Ridge from happening is to have fewer law enforcement agencies and agents break the law.

The latter solution is what anybody who believes in the rule of law would side with.
The former solution is what somebody who dislikes guns would side with.

promethean75's strategy is akin to fighting an autoimmune disease by having less organs which your immune system can attack. He doesn't understand the function of the immune system (law enforcement).

[promethean75]

Yeah I was really just fuckin with HQ. Tighter gun regulations would be healthy but I wouldn't ever endorse eliminating all firearms not used for hunting. We need the working class to be strapped bruh, not disarmed.

[commonsense]

I get it. Government bad, Weavers good.

[Skepdick]

I get it. Government bad, Weavers good.

These generalized over-simplifications always muddy the water for simple minds.

Soon as the good guys start doing bad things; and bad guys start doing good things everybody gets confused about whose side needs taking and whose side needs opposing.

[commonsense]

I get it. Government bad, Weavers good.

These generalized over-simplifications always muddy the water for simple minds.

Soon as the good guys start doing bad things; and bad guys start doing good things everybody gets confused about whose side needs taking and whose side needs opposing.

I was being facetious. Your point is well taken.

[Walker]

Let's talk about it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mUZ9HCi6wBs

This incident makes the case for an armed citizenry.
https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... ntrol.html

On October 7, the day Hamas attacked Israel, Inbal Rabin-Lieberman, a 25-year-old security coordinator at the Kibbutz Nir Am settlement located near the Gaza Strip, saved lives because she had a gun. After the kibbutz came under attack, Inbal hurriedly opened the armory and distributed guns to the twelve-member security team.

She caught the Hamas murderers unawares because they were not expecting to meet armed resistance. Lieberman killed five terrorists while the others gunned down twenty-five before the Israeli Defense Force arrived. Because of her actions, Nir-Am was the only settlement bordering the Gaza Strip that did not suffer Israeli casualties during Hama’s attack.

[mickthinks]

This incident makes the case for an armed citizenry.

No it doesn't. It only seems to if you can conveniently overlook that the Hamas terrorists are an armed citizenry.

[promethean75]

The most common problem with gun control is muzzle rise. Here's an explanation of the phenomena.

"The primary reason for muzzle rise is that for nearly all guns, the bore axis (longitudinal centerline of the barrel) is above the gun's center of mass, while the contact points between the shooter and the gun (e.g. grips and stock) are often all below the center of mass. When the gun is fired, the bullet motion and the escaping propellant gases exert a reactional recoil directly backwards along the bore axis, while the countering forward push from the shooter's hands and body are well below it. This creates a rotational couple, exerting a torque around the center of mass that causes the gun to pitch upwards, causing the muzzle to elevate."

[Skepdick]

This incident makes the case for an armed citizenry.

No it doesn't. It only seems to if you can conveniently overlook that the Hamas terrorists are an armed citizenry.

All armed forces are armed citizenry.

The Russians invading Ukraine are armed citizenry.
The IDF bombing Palestine is armed citizenry.

What's your point?

[mickthinks]

The Russians invading Ukraine are armed citizenry. The IDF bombing Palestine is armed citizenry.
Are they?

What's your point?
My point is that the case Walker cited doesn't make the case for an armed citizenry. Sorry I didn't make that more clear for you.