What is common sense? What is a conversation?

[ATOMonkey]

The reason that the "middle ground" keeps getting re-defined is because America is a representative republic. And gun owners who want an unrestricted interpretation of the 2nd amendment only make up a portion of the entire republic. The rest of the republic also gets represented in these debates.

The question about criminals is a good one. But it's not really the spark that has lit the current debate. The current debate is centered around keeping guns out of the hands of troubled young people, minimizing the amount of damage they can do, and most of all protecting children in schools who have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal until he pulled the trigger on his mother.

Please don't misunderstand me, I am in fervent support of the second amendment. But I believe our constitution is wise. That the state of our union is solid. That thousands of men and woman across the country have taken an oath to defend the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. I was one of those servants and I am aware of the difference between a lawful and unlawful order.

I simply don't see the practical application of a "well regulated" civilian militia in our modern age.

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends..."

That is the practical application of a "well regulated" civilian militia in our modern age.

Also...

"...being necessary to the security of a free State."

Further

"...for the defense of themselves and the State."

 

[miguel]

I basically stopped talking to my leftist friends in late-2011 and finished up by mid-2012.

No point to it.

I found this article a few weeks ago and bookmarked it. The photo and caption summed it up for me: http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html?m=1

 

[thatgtrguy]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"Shall not be infringed" means NO MIDDLE GROUND! Period, no more conversation is necessary!

It also says "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".

 

[ATOMonkey]

It also says "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".

There are more enemies of freedom in the house than out of it.

By a long shot.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It also says "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".

Well regulated means that it works right, hijacking of the word 'regulate' as a synonym of 'restrict' in recent decades notwithstanding, and the militia is all of us assembled with our guns. What is your point?

 

[Wysko]

It also says "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".

Oh I see now, Only the National Guard has the right to keep and bear arms. And to think we had it wrong for the last 237 years.

 

[jkershner]

It also says "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".

This is a very common argument, but the language is important here. At the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified:

Well regulated = well trained
Militia = every able-bodied male not already in the military


You may have your opinion that the 2nd Amendment is antiquated, impractical, useless, etc. Of course I (and many others on this site) disagree, but that is not the larger point, which is (or should be):

Whatever your opinion of the 2A, it does not change what the amendment actually says. Your solution IMO would be to push for a repeal of the 2A, if that is your belief.

 

[cosermann]

Agreed. Where there is a lack of shared principle, there is no compromise. Then we must fall back to things like statistics, ethics, morality and practicality.

Statistically, so-called "assault weapons" are used in something like 0.6-0.7% of crimes. So yeah, let's fall back on statistics. When the left is ready for a fact-based reasonable debate I'm all for it. It's currently an emotionally driven propaganda program. It has to be since the left has been losing the reasoned/logical argument on this issue for a while now (cascade of state shall issue laws, AWB expiration, falling crime rates for 30 yrs, etc.).

Freeing the slaves was pretty unpopular. Giving women equal rights as well. ...

The slavery issue was decided by a war and a subsequent Constitutional Amendment (13th).

Universal women's sufferage in the U.S. was secured by the 19th Amendment.

Let's stop pretending the Second Amendment doesn't exist, and engaging in legal sophistry about how "reasonable" the next objective infringement will be, and instead have a conversation to amend the Constitution.

The Second Amendment is rooted in the principle of self defense, which itself is a corollary of the right to "life" with which we are endowed by our Creator (Dec. of Independence). The right to life assumes the right to the common means of defending that life (which in our day, includes firearms). The Second Amendment, which exists in our system of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," is simply aggregated "of the people" (i.e. national) self defense against tyranny. Therefore, it is not nullified simply because we now have a significant standing military.

...If an innocent kid doesn't even get to exercise his or her right to life; then what's the practical use of any of the other rights?

No doubt a tragedy enabled by the so-called "gun free zones" created by the kind of gun control legislation being discussed! It is barbaric to require school kids to essentially be defenseless. This whole conversation should be turned on it's head as a campaign to allow school teachers and administrators to be armed. That's the approach Israel took after the Ma’alot massacre in 1974, and there has been no successful mass murder at an Israeli school since.

 

[ghuns]

I simply don't see the practical application of a "well regulated" civilian militia in our modern age.

Forget for a minute that we even have a 2nd Amendment, probably not hard for you, do I have a natural right to defend myself and my family for anyone who would do us harm? Does that right apply both on my property and in public? If you can agree with any of that, shouldn't I be able to use a tool that is equal or better than what I can reasonably expect to be attacked with?

Why should I, a law abiding citizen, be restricted to a reduced capacity 10 round magazine when it's reasonable to assume, that if confronted by an armed attacker, he will be using a normal capacity magazine? He's a criminal after all. Where's his motivation to submit to an arbitrary magazine restriction when he's already committed to breaking much more serious laws?

If the need to use a firearm in self defense ever arises, I want every advantage that I can get. I don't want to be armed equally as my attacker, I want be be armed better. To restrict citizens rights in their choices of defensive tools puts them at a distinct disadvantage to the criminal element.

 

[upalot]

I simply don't see the practical application of a "well regulated" civilian militia in our modern age.

I on the other hand, having logged in over 63 years on this earth haven't felt that we need it now more than any other time in my life.

 

[Ted]

.....because America is a representative republic....

The key word being, republic....as opposed to a democracy.

Republic: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

If a majority of government would decide to outright ban the civilian possession and ownership of firearms, under the laws of our republic...the Constitution of the United States, their action would be illegal.

The only difference being, is that they're doing it a piece at a time.

I simply don't see the practical application of a "well regulated" civilian militia in our modern age.

Then I would direct you to Warren v. District of Columbia, with the similar rulings that have remained consistent among all jurisdictions at the federal and state levels, and even the Magna Carta recognized the right to self defense, as well as the means to it.

 

[spec4]

OP, I think life is too short to try to reason with liberals. Let them wallow in their misguided self righteousness. Compromise to a liberal means you do what they want. Common sense to a liberal means you go along with whatever freedom sucking law they want to foist on you. With my liberal relatives and in laws, I avoid any meaningful discussion. The rest I ignore. My belief is that a person has to figure this out by themselves. My first vote was for LBJ. He later turned me into a Republican.

 

[printcraft]

.......
Please don't misunderstand me, I am in fervent support of the second amendment. .....

Great! Of course you are. Glad we established that.....

.... So the middle ground would be people must undergo waiting periods annual classes and certifications that include mental, emotional and psychological fitness evaluations...

Ok, you are losing me here.....

......I simply don't see the practical application of a "well regulated" civilian militia in our modern age....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueywqUBW3oM

 

[ghuns]

Common sense dictates that when you go shooting, the time is best spent shooting, not loading magazines. Common sense dictates that you carry more ammo than you think you need. Hit rates on bad guys for police are only around 20%*. Common sense dictates that if police have use for modern semi-auto handguns and rifles, with the standard capacity magazine that the manufacturer built them with, that those firearms are a good choice for us too.

*footnote* no offense to our LEOs. That's the NYPD hit rate, I'm sure our INGO LEOs would fair much better At least I hope they would

 

[IndyDave1776]

Common sense dictates that when you go shooting, the time is best spent shooting, not loading magazines. Common sense dictates that you carry more ammo than you think you need. Hit rates on bad guys for police are only around 20%*. Common sense dictates that if police have use for modern semi-auto handguns and rifles, with the standard capacity magazine that the manufacturer built them with, that those firearms are a good choice for us too.

*footnote* no offense to our LEOs. That's the NYPD hit rate, I'm sure our INGO LEOs would fair much better At least I hope they would

You're talking sense about leftist propaganda. Stop that! That's not allowed!

 

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

Statistically, so-called "assault weapons" are used in something like 0.6-0.7% of crimes. So yeah, let's fall back on statistics. When the left is ready for a fact-based reasonable debate I'm all for it. It's currently an emotionally driven propaganda program. It has to be since the left has been losing the reasoned/logical argument on this issue for a while now (cascade of state shall issue laws, AWB expiration, falling crime rates for 30 yrs, etc.).



The slavery issue was decided by a war and a subsequent Constitutional Amendment (13th).

Universal women's sufferage in the U.S. was secured by the 19th Amendment.

Let's stop pretending the Second Amendment doesn't exist, and engaging in legal sophistry about how "reasonable" the next objective infringement will be, and instead have a conversation to amend the Constitution.

The Second Amendment is rooted in the principle of self defense, which itself is a corollary of the right to "life" with which we are endowed by our Creator (Dec. of Independence). The right to life assumes the right to the common means of defending that life (which in our day, includes firearms). The Second Amendment, which exists in our system of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," is simply aggregated "of the people" (i.e. national) self defense against tyranny. Therefore, it is not nullified simply because we now have a significant standing military.



No doubt a tragedy enabled by the so-called "gun free zones" created by the kind of gun control legislation being discussed! It is barbaric to require school kids to essentially be defenseless. This whole conversation should be turned on it's head as a campaign to allow school teachers and administrators to be armed. That's the approach Israel took after the Ma’alot massacre in 1974, and there has been no successful mass murder at an Israeli school since.

It is a common misnomer to equate "slavery" as the impetus for the Civil War of the 1860s. It was not!

The facts are there were numerous issues that resulted in the War of the Americans against the Northern Aggressors.

The foremost issue, was the fact that the southern states felt the Constitution was being violated in reference to States Rights.

The South felt that the Federal government was secondary to the power of the States. In their eyes Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant! In my eyes this war was the beginning of the slow destruction of American freedom.

Put simply, the Federal government is massive and out of control because it is out of balance with the US Constitution. Most of the agencies and federal laws we grew up with and have become accustomed to are Un-Constitutional.

"Slavery" and "Sandy Hook" can be considered synonymous in the sense that they were/are being used as the emotional catalyst to deprive Americans of even more Freedoms in this case the 2nd Amendment.

We will once again face a battle of politics and will between those who believe in the literal interpretation of the Constitution which implys that the States are Supreme and those who believe that the Constitution is just a little book and the Federal Government is supreme.

 

[thatgtrguy]

Just a quick reply to thank everyone who has been replying to me. Everyone has made some great points. And I respect them all. Hopefully I'll get to meet you at the range someday.

 

[YJBrian]

Hit rates on bad guys for police are only around 20%*.

*footnote* no offense to our LEOs. That's the NYPD hit rate, I'm sure our INGO LEOs would fair much better At least I hope they would

If one were to include bystanders, the NYPD hit rate is much higher than 20%...

 

[RoyalTenenbaum]

OP, I think life is too short to try to reason with liberals. Let them wallow in their misguided self righteousness. Compromise to a liberal means you do what they want. Common sense to a liberal means you go along with whatever freedom sucking law they want to foist on you. With my liberal relatives and in laws, I avoid any meaningful discussion. The rest I ignore. My belief is that a person has to figure this out by themselves. My first vote was for LBJ. He later turned me into a Republican.

 

[Ted]

......My first vote was for LBJ. He later turned me into a Republican.

Man, you are old.