Gun Violence Facts for 2012

What you fail to understand is that the right to bear arms stems from God-given the right to protect oneself from anything else (including individuals and nation states). Governments obtain their rights from those delegated by the people. If you argue that a government has the right to own a weapon you make the argument the individual also has that right, else how could the the group have a right no individual possess to give it.



That said I think hand guns are ridiculous (even for law enforcement). If you really think you need protection carry a rifle or shotgun or a grenade launcher for that matter. They are far more effective and far less dangerous.

Unfortunately, JVQB, hand guns already exist, and they are the only way that one may carry concealed, which some of us are required to do if we want to carry at work. Also, they are easier to access and handle than a rifle or shotgun across your back, and most of the time a weapon is needed to protect one's self, it is at close range in a matter of seconds.

jvquarterback wrote:
What you fail to understand is that the right to bear arms stems from God-given the right to protect oneself from anything else (including individuals and nation states). Governments obtain their rights from those delegated by the people. If you argue that a government has the right to own a weapon you make the argument the individual also has that right, else how could the the group have a right no individual possess to give it.

What I fail to understand is why an individual's God-given right to protect himself must necessarily be extended to the most extreme end of the spectrum of whatever weaponry is available. At some point (we can argue about where the line is, e.g. grenade launchers or no, etc.) there is going to be a line limiting the destructive power that any single person can possess and still maintain an ordered, livable society. Never mind that we all have different opinions as to what constitutes "extreme," my point is and always has been that in order to be meaningful this debate is about where that line is, not whether it should exist as you guys seem to be saying.

And don't get me wrong, I disagree with a ban on "assault weapons." I believe the best way to stop school shootings is more guns in schools. And I think an armed populace is necessary so that government has another reason to fear its people. But there is definitely room for debate as to what weapons are going to cause more problems than they solve.

I own a few thousand acres in northern British Columbia recognized by the Canadian government. Between my brothers and three cousins we own probably about 100000 more acres. Unfortunately the royal Canadian government disagrees claiming it for itself. If my family had the weapons we could assert our prior right to the land in question. So I have the right to own enough weaponry to assert my property ownership rights. That means I personally have the right to at least as much as the entire Canadian government.



Every individual has the right to protect their life, liberty and property. The thieving US government now says they have the right to steal 38% of the product of my labor and I say they have the right to none of it. I have the same right to protect my property from theft by the government as I would to protect my wallet from any thug on the street. So I would be within my rights to amass an arsenal large enough to protect that property from the US government.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Of course there are limits; my right to the use of force ends when I wish to use it against people who have not harmed me so if one of my bullets goes astray I am personally responsible for whatever occurs whether I'm an individual or a cop or a marine.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Sammich, I agree on all points. We need the right to protect ourselves from tyranny. Having served in the military, a semi-automatic rifle in the hands of someone who knows how to use it does the trick. Fully auto is nice for suppressing fire or for when masses of people are coming at you. But that is not the kind of battle you would be fighting against the government. It would be more guerilla warfare house to house. In that instance, I would still probably rather live by the mantra of the military--one shot, one kill.



II hope it never comes to that. Unfettered access to military grade weapons is a bad idea. If someone wants to argue that perhaps the military should not have such destructive power OK--if that's what it takes to balance power between citizenry and government, so be it. We wouldn't use nukes on ourselves, so that should be a fine deterrent for enemy invaders. But we should not seek balance by handing out grenade launchers, AT4s and Stinger missiles to the wacked out citizenry at large..

It seems to me there are parallel arguments being made here. One of the arguments is regarding the 2nd amendment and the right to self-defense and self-rule.



The other is regarding the extent or limitation on the ability to defend or attack and what is safe and practical for society.



These are two totally different subjects.



The constitution was written, not to create the United States of America, but to restrict the power of federal government. The 14th amendment clouds this a bit because it brings individual states under the umbrella of preserving rights, but does not change the original charter of the constitution, so to speak.



The point of all this is the 2nd specifically bars the federal government from legislating laws that restrict Americans from owning and using military weaponry. Period.



Now, I know some of you will want to argue safety, practicality, etc. As Sammich puts it, you want to know where the line is. This is a matter for individual states and militias. Not the federal government. So yes there is a line but the question of where that line is is secondary to who draws the line. The constitution intends for those questions and concerns to be dealt with locally.



To our detriment we have not maintained "well regulated" militias. Militias are not just about running around in the woods with guns and shaking fists at the government. Militias are about citizens working together to make the places we live in better. They are about responsible self-government, rugged individualism, and self-reliance. Neighbor looking out for neighbor. We have lost these skills and become sloppy and weak as we put more faith in outside government than we put in one another.

Cougarfan87 wrote:
Sammich, I agree on all points. We need the right to protect ourselves from tyranny. Having served in the military, a semi-automatic rifle in the hands of someone who knows how to use it does the trick. Fully auto is nice for suppressing fire or for when masses of people are coming at you. But that is not the kind of battle you would be fighting against the government. It would be more guerilla warfare house to house. In that instance, I would still probably rather live by the mantra of the military--one shot, one kill.



II hope it never comes to that. Unfettered access to military grade weapons is a bad idea. If someone wants to argue that perhaps the military should not have such destructive power OK--if that's what it takes to balance power between citizenry and government, so be it. We wouldn't use nukes on ourselves, so that should be a fine deterrent for enemy invaders. But we should not seek balance by handing out grenade launchers, AT4s and Stinger missiles to the wacked out citizenry at large..

Of course the government wants to have all the weapons while depriving citizens. There was a state legislator in North Carolina a few years back who had spent his 40 year career arguing against individual gun ownership who gunned down two home invaders with his ar-15. Every Democrat in Congress has several armed guards carrying automatic rifles, yet they will argue that you and I have no right to the same protection.



It appears we have a problem with the idea that governments obtain their rights from the individuals who organized that government.



Most of you would argue with President Benson who said, the government can have no right except the ones freely delegated by the individual citizens. So if an individual has no right to a stinger missile, F-18 or a grenade launcher, government can have no right to any of those things either.

Schmoe wrote:

I disagree. Besides, you guys are missing the point to address a sidenote.

I know that my comment is completely tangential, but the fact that my vote counts far less than a person's in Florida or California is ridiculous.

Tangential I know, but your vote and mine in Presidential elections mean zero with the EC

tww wrote:
It seems to me there are parallel arguments being made here. One of the arguments is regarding the 2nd amendment and the right to self-defense and self-rule.



The other is regarding the extent or limitation on the ability to defend or attack and what is safe and practical for society.



These are two totally different subjects.



The constitution was written, not to create the United States of America, but to restrict the power of federal government. The 14th amendment clouds this a bit because it brings individual states under the umbrella of preserving rights, but does not change the original charter of the constitution, so to speak.



The point of all this is the 2nd specifically bars the federal government from legislating laws that restrict Americans from owning and using military weaponry. Period.



Now, I know some of you will want to argue safety, practicality, etc. As Sammich puts it, you want to know where the line is. This is a matter for individual states and militias. Not the federal government. So yes there is a line but the question of where that line is is secondary to who draws the line. The constitution intends for those questions and concerns to be dealt with locally.



To our detriment we have not maintained "well regulated" militias. Militias are not just about running around in the woods with guns and shaking fists at the government. Militias are about citizens working together to make the places we live in better. They are about responsible self-government, rugged individualism, and self-reliance. Neighbor looking out for neighbor. We have lost these skills and become sloppy and weak as we put more faith in outside government than we put in one another.

TWW I know we disagree a lot but you make some good points here. My one thought in response is that every Biil of Right as a limit on the government, is NOT absolutes but subject to reason and reform. No one has an absolute right to say whatever they want, practice whatever religion they want, keep the government out of their houses etc. The second A is no different. In my humble view the Second A does not grant absolute unfettered right to any and all weapons but is subject to reason.

BoiseBYU wrote:

It seems to me there are parallel arguments being made here. One of the arguments is regarding the 2nd amendment and the right to self-defense and self-rule.



The other is regarding the extent or limitation on the ability to defend or attack and what is safe and practical for society.



These are two totally different subjects.



The constitution was written, not to create the United States of America, but to restrict the power of federal government. The 14th amendment clouds this a bit because it brings individual states under the umbrella of preserving rights, but does not change the original charter of the constitution, so to speak.



The point of all this is the 2nd specifically bars the federal government from legislating laws that restrict Americans from owning and using military weaponry. Period.



Now, I know some of you will want to argue safety, practicality, etc. As Sammich puts it, you want to know where the line is. This is a matter for individual states and militias. Not the federal government. So yes there is a line but the question of where that line is is secondary to who draws the line. The constitution intends for those questions and concerns to be dealt with locally.



To our detriment we have not maintained "well regulated" militias. Militias are not just about running around in the woods with guns and shaking fists at the government. Militias are about citizens working together to make the places we live in better. They are about responsible self-government, rugged individualism, and self-reliance. Neighbor looking out for neighbor. We have lost these skills and become sloppy and weak as we put more faith in outside government than we put in one another.

TWW I know we disagree a lot but you make some good points here. My one thought in response is that every Biil of Right as a limit on the government, is NOT absolutes but subject to reason and reform. No one has an absolute right to say whatever they want, practice whatever religion they want, keep the government out of their houses etc. The second A is no different. In my humble view the Second A does not grant absolute unfettered right to any and all weapons but is subject to reason.

Yes, I agree. For example I do not believe the right to free speech allows for pornography.



It seems the pivotal point is WHOSE reason determines what is reasonable. My only position is that when it comes to making determinations on things like the 2A it should not be determined by the federal government but by states, counties, or some other local level as best serves the people.

BoiseBYU wrote:

Sammich wrote:
I disagree. Besides, you guys are missing the point to address a sidenote.

I know that my comment is completely tangential, but the fact that my vote counts far less than a person's in Florida or California is ridiculous.

Tangential I know, but your vote and mine in Presidential elections mean zero with the EC

With all of the shortcomings of the EC, consider this. It may seem like the current system allows States like florida and Ohio to elect the president. The problem would be magnified without the EC. If there were no EC then only the the largest cities would elect the president. LA and New York would run the country.



Eliminating the EC would not strengthen your vote but in fact make it weaker. It would be a move from the frying pan into the fire.



It would also push us further from a republic and deeper into a anarchical or fascist democracy.

tww wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

I disagree. Besides, you guys are missing the point to address a sidenote.

I know that my comment is completely tangential, but the fact that my vote counts far less than a person's in Florida or California is ridiculous.

Tangential I know, but your vote and mine in Presidential elections mean zero with the EC

With all of the shortcomings of the EC, consider this. It may seem like the current system allows States like florida and Ohio to elect the president. The problem would be magnified without the EC. If there were no EC then only the the largest cities would elect the president. LA and New York would run the country.



Eliminating the EC would not strengthen your vote but in fact make it weaker. It would be a move from the frying pan into the fire.



It would also push us further from a republic and deeper into a anarchical or fascist democracy.

Or the alternative, if you replace it with a system that gives a higher weight of the vote to less populous states, then you have a system that is very unfair to the population at large. It's definitely not a perfect system as is but I have never heard a proposal that balances the issues better than the current one.

tww wrote:
It seems to me there are parallel arguments being made here. One of the arguments is regarding the 2nd amendment and the right to self-defense and self-rule.



The other is regarding the extent or limitation on the ability to defend or attack and what is safe and practical for society.



These are two totally different subjects.



The constitution was written, not to create the United States of America, but to restrict the power of federal government. The 14th amendment clouds this a bit because it brings individual states under the umbrella of preserving rights, but does not change the original charter of the constitution, so to speak.



The point of all this is the 2nd specifically bars the federal government from legislating laws that restrict Americans from owning and using military weaponry. Period.



Now, I know some of you will want to argue safety, practicality, etc. As Sammich puts it, you want to know where the line is. This is a matter for individual states and militias. Not the federal government. So yes there is a line but the question of where that line is is secondary to who draws the line. The constitution intends for those questions and concerns to be dealt with locally.



To our detriment we have not maintained "well regulated" militias. Militias are not just about running around in the woods with guns and shaking fists at the government. Militias are about citizens working together to make the places we live in better. They are about responsible self-government, rugged individualism, and self-reliance. Neighbor looking out for neighbor. We have lost these skills and become sloppy and weak as we put more faith in outside government than we put in one another.

This is a great post and I think leaving it up to states would address a lot of the concerns here (at least until Montana creates a small army with big armaments and another election goes to the likes of Obama).

As for the jvquarterback mindset, I guess I have to chalk that up to the difference between conservative and libertarian. Not sure I understand the boundless idealism of libertarianism (especially when preached by the grumpy aggressive personality types I've worked with in the past---what a strange combination!), but I have to admire the optimism of it.

Sammich wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

Sammich wrote:
I disagree. Besides, you guys are missing the point to address a sidenote.

I know that my comment is completely tangential, but the fact that my vote counts far less than a person's in Florida or California is ridiculous.

Tangential I know, but your vote and mine in Presidential elections mean zero with the EC

With all of the shortcomings of the EC, consider this. It may seem like the current system allows States like florida and Ohio to elect the president. The problem would be magnified without the EC. If there were no EC then only the the largest cities would elect the president. LA and New York would run the country.



Eliminating the EC would not strengthen your vote but in fact make it weaker. It would be a move from the frying pan into the fire.



It would also push us further from a republic and deeper into a anarchical or fascist democracy.

Or the alternative, if you replace it with a system that gives a higher weight of the vote to less populous states, then you have a system that is very unfair to the population at large. It's definitely not a perfect system as is but I have never heard a proposal that balances the issues better than the current one.

Yeah, you are right. It was a compromise arrived at to keep the small states in the union.

* I meant Republican and Libertarian, since Libertarian is on the conservative side of the spectrum.

Sammich wrote:

It seems to me there are parallel arguments being made here. One of the arguments is regarding the 2nd amendment and the right to self-defense and self-rule.



The other is regarding the extent or limitation on the ability to defend or attack and what is safe and practical for society.



These are two totally different subjects.



The constitution was written, not to create the United States of America, but to restrict the power of federal government. The 14th amendment clouds this a bit because it brings individual states under the umbrella of preserving rights, but does not change the original charter of the constitution, so to speak.



The point of all this is the 2nd specifically bars the federal government from legislating laws that restrict Americans from owning and using military weaponry. Period.



Now, I know some of you will want to argue safety, practicality, etc. As Sammich puts it, you want to know where the line is. This is a matter for individual states and militias. Not the federal government. So yes there is a line but the question of where that line is is secondary to who draws the line. The constitution intends for those questions and concerns to be dealt with locally.



To our detriment we have not maintained "well regulated" militias. Militias are not just about running around in the woods with guns and shaking fists at the government. Militias are about citizens working together to make the places we live in better. They are about responsible self-government, rugged individualism, and self-reliance. Neighbor looking out for neighbor. We have lost these skills and become sloppy and weak as we put more faith in outside government than we put in one another.

This is a great post and I think leaving it up to states would address a lot of the concerns here (at least until Montana creates a small army with big armaments and another election goes to the likes of Obama).

As for the jvquarterback mindset, I guess I have to chalk that up to the difference between conservative and libertarian. Not sure I understand the boundless idealism of libertarianism (especially when preached by the grumpy aggressive personality types I've worked with in the past---what a strange combination!), but I have to admire the optimism of it.

Thanks, Sammich. I have been trying to figure out "the boundless idealism of libertarianism" myself. I have a few theories but not there yet.



Did you see Anne Coulter's face off with a bunch of young libertarians? It was very interesting. Especially when it came down to libertarians saying that they wanted the government to recognize gay marriage but they didn't think the government aught to be involved with marriage at all.



One thing I have observed about the pure libertarian way of thinking is that it seems short sighted and simplistic like they haven't thought it all the way through.

I believe Libertarianism is as evil an ideology as Communism. They both take a grain of truth and twist it until it's evil.

Can't speak for libertarians as I am not one but here is the the thing thou guys are missing: government is just a group of individuals. You ascribe some magical power to government when you say it can have weapons individuals cannot. Where does the government derive that right? Either it derives from a god-given or natural right or it is simply a manifestation of the power of those people. Your arguments point to the latter - whoever has the most guns determines where the line is drawn.



When you argue an individual cannot possess the weapons to protect themself from a larger group of people you twist a god-given right into a simple manifestation of power. Now that is perverse. That is calling good evil.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

jvquarterback wrote:
Can't speak for libertarians as I am not one but here is the the thing thou guys are missing: government is just a group of individuals. You ascribe some magical power to government when you say it can have weapons individuals cannot. Where does the government derive that right? Either it derives from a god-given or natural right or it is simply a manifestation of the power of those people. Your arguments point to the latter - whoever has the most guns determines where the line is drawn.



When you argue an individual cannot possess the weapons to protect themself from a larger group of people you twist a god-given right into a simple manifestation of power. Now that is perverse. That is calling good evil.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Whether Libertarian or not, eliminating any restriction whatsoever on weaponry is a Libertarian way of thinking. The Libertarian mindset assumes that because freedom is good, even more freedom is better. Since less government is good, none at all is even better. You're basically saying the same thing: protecting myself is a God-given right, therefore I should have access to any means available through current technology to perform that task. It makes sense in a strange sort of way so I see why you hold the position, but is a completely unreasonable way to think when you consider the spectrum of people that will take advantage of the level of freedom you are advocating. It is incorrect to say the constitution was made to limit the government's power: yes it does limit government power, but it also gives the government power. The balance of federal vs. state, house vs. house, populace vs. economic interest, democracy vs. republic, all were made to have empowerment and limitation bound together. Government power IS separate from and greater than the people's power in certain arenas; otherwise we wouldn't have it at all. Just because we want to limit that power doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.



And I wouldn't go so far as to say that Libertarianism is as bad as Communism; both might be blind but the blindness of one makes it an ineffectual force in American politics, where the blindness of the other allows the empowerment of totalitarian evil every single time.