It doesn't make a difference what you or I think.....let's listen to the men who were the framers of the Constitution. Don't argue with me....argue with them.

GEORGE MASON: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people.....To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

JOHN ADAMS: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion......in private self defense."

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "The constitution of most of our states assert, that all power is inherent in the people......that is their right and duty to be at all times armed. No free man shall be debarred the use of arms within his own land."

JAMES MADISON: "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation....where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. (By the way....it might be interesting to note.....Madison wanted to make the Second Amendment....the First. That's how important he thought it was to a free soceity.)

THOMAS PAINE: "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law abiding deprived of the use of them."

RICHARD HENRY LEE: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves....and include 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 how to use them." (Interesting note: It almost appears from two of the above quotes you would be on more solid Constituional ground to DEMAND that people buy guns and learn how to use them. Hmmmm.)

And finally.....a personal favorite....(you really need professional help to misunderstand this one):

SAMUEL ADAMS: "The Constitution SHALL NEVER (caps mine) be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping THEIR OWN ARMS." (caps mine)

So Ben....I have studied the issue....both sides. But just like the Suprememe Court of the US....I come down on the side of the law...and what is right.

But don't argue with me anymore.....argue with them. And please....call them out by name so we know whose argument you are tearing apart.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Answers

Like I said Ben....your argument is with them (i.e., the founding fathers).....not me.

And....I might add....it is purely hypothetical to suggest what the founding fathers may or may not have "forseen."

The ONLY FACT we have is what the law is....and what they intended for the law to do.

Yes....I have lived in many large cities....Tampa, FL for one. By the way....Florida now has a very gracious concealed weapons permitting system. In fact, they honor mine when I'm there. Haven't shot a single person......YET!!!:)

But....I digress. You said "that's not what the Second Amendment meant"......and the founding fathers proved you wrong.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Cool!!!! I'd love to have a cannon....something in the .50 cal. range!!!!

Sorry Connie.....what part of "no"......do you not understand???

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Actually Mark and Connie....there is a picture that I think more symbolizes my position....and I believe Mark will agree with me on this one. And...in fact.....it is a Scriptural picture.

Nehemiah describes the workers building the wall under fire from their enemies in this way....Nehemiah 4:16.....

"Those who carried material did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other."

I like that!!!! They did the work of the Lord with one hand (i.e., rebuilding the wall)....and carried their weapons of defense in the other hand.

What do you think of that picture Mark......the Bible in one hand....and an AR 15 in the other hand??

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2000

Benjamin.....

The biggest problem I see with your last post....is it guilty of faulty logic known as the "Genetic fallacy." That is....you give the false impression to your listeners that because you can tell the origin of something you can, therefore, call into question the logic or truthfulness of a statement.

What difference does it make who gathered the information.....as long as the information is factual??? If we start going down that line of thinking than upon what basis do we trust any historical quote and/or information?? Even Satan himself at times speaks truth in the Bible.

I have a much higher degree of trust for the NRA, et. al. who believe in the Second Amendment and the Constitution....than people such as Al Gore, et. al.....who have shown blatan disregard not just for the Second Amendment....but....the Constitution itself.

But.....as for my source.....it is a little blue book called..."The Second Amendment Primer", not written by the NRA....but certainly endorsed by them. If you would like one....simply visit the on line NRA store....get the primer....and check out the historical accuracy of what is said.

I never intended to imply that your lack of response proved anything. My statement still stands, however. The founding fathers and framers of the Constitution made it very clear as to their intent. The suggestion that there was "much dissent" is an attempt at historical revisionism on your part. The fact that it is the "Second"amendment and not the 21st indicates there was little to no dissent. The only dissent I have ever been able to come across is those who thought it should be the "First" amendment.

BTW.....I want to suggest to you....that the Gun Control issue was probably THE MOST pivotal issue that lost Al Gore the election. Cases in point.....all he had to do was win one of the following states to win the election....his home state of Tennessee, West Virginia....or Arkansas. I can't speak for Tennesee but....West Virginia had always voted Democrat (big coal unions). However, deer hunting is a way of life in West Virginia. They recognized Al Gore as a danger to their gun ownership. Same is true for Arkansas. Hunting, especially waterfowl, is not only a way of life....but a major source of state income as many duck hunters from around the country plan vacation time there. Arkansas also realized the danger of Al Gore and his "infringement" of Second Amendment rights.

As far as my hint in favor of regulation....you misrepresent my position. I simply stated.....what is the purpose of new gun laws if they do not enforce the ones currently on the book???

I tell you what the long range purpose is. In fact, we have historical precendence in Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Keep passing gun laws you have no intention of enforcing. Then, one day, when the people are ready say...."Look....we have tried everything....laws, registration...etc....etc. None of it has worked....so there is only one thing left to do.....confiscate the weapons."

And in the words of Hitler himself...."Now we will have a safe society."

Dictatorship and gun control.....they go hand in hand.

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2000

Ben......

Sorry....but the burden of proof is on you to produce signers or even "framers" (a word I have frequently used) who dissented from the intent of the Second Amendment.

Otherwise....you are simply guilty of historical revisionism.

And....I wish you would quit touting Britain as an example of good gun control.

While gun control has been good for the govt....it has left the criminals in a state of a "free for all" and crime is rising at an unprecendented rate.....all this, and yet while the average citizen is not allowed to have guns....Tony Blair can still have his body guards and police protection.

Reminds me of Rosie O' Donnel......a harsh, outspoken critic for gun control....and yet.....her body guard recently applied for a gun permit.

Hmmmmm.....are guns only for the rich and famous?? Sounds to me like the tyranny that our forefathers fought against.

Tell me Ben....what is it that you have against an NRA supported policy of......."ZERO TOLERANCE AND 100 PERCENT PROSECUTION OF CRIMINALS WHO USE GUNS??"

Ben.....you started off saying that the Second Amendment never meant people could have guns and I (or should I say....the founding fathers)....proved you wrong. Just because you assert something (i.e., "there were dissenters") does not make it so. Let's see them. And even at that....if there were dissenters........it makes no difference....the Amendment was ratified and placed into law. Two hundred plus years and a number of court cases that try to prove otherwise.....have failed. History is most definitely on my side.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

And Ben.....

Just because I won't play by your rules....doesn't mean...I discuss nothing of substance.

Ad hominems are signs of a weak argument.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

Here's some more for you to chew on. Nope...not compiled by the NRA....simply an internet search that you could do...if you really wanted to.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-- Benjamin Franklin

"...but if 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 use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." --Alexander Hamilton

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." --Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." --Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" - -Thomas Jefferson

"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 the constant companion of your walks. --Thomas Jefferson

"…The said Constitution be never construed …to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

I'm sorry Benjamin....but I'm afraid this thread has cost you a great deal of credibility.

You have made sweeping generalizations....then when pointed out that you are wrong....you simply ignore it...or question the intent.

You have zero..zilch...nada right to make any statements about the NRA and how they spend their money when YOU DO NOT HAVE THE FAINTEST IDEA!!!

You question my quotations....then when I simply do an internet search to produce "signers and framers".....you just shrug it off.

Then it hit me!! Your attitude is summed up in this statement from one of your earlier threads....

"I would strongly support an amendment to the 2nd amendment to bring it into the 20th century! The Bill of Rights certainly can be "interpreted" by the Supreme Court. (They've done it multiple times with the 1st amendment.) I would strongly support the Supreme Court getting up enough "guts" to do something about interpreting the 2nd amendment to suit today's situation in the country and in the world."

In other words.....YOU COULD CARE LESS WHAT THE LAW IS AND WHAT THE FRAMERS MEANT!!....you want a Supreme Court like the Kangaroo Florida Supreme Court that writes laws as they go along to fit their personal likes and dislikes.

It is not the purpose of the Surpeme Court to rewrite the law Ben. It is their job to interpret. Period.

You dont' like guns?? Fine!!! But learn to argue from an intelligent informed understanding of the law rather than what you "wish" the law would be.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

I'll let the readers of the forum note....that by Ben's own admission his main source of information is.......THE MEDIA!!! (nuff said)

Ben.....your last post reminds me of the button people wore, I believe during the Eisenhower presidential campaign....which said...."My mind is made up!!! Don't confuse me with the facts!!"

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2001

Ben...As with most liberals on this subject....you could care less about the facts....you have your mind made up.

I have shared numerous quotes from signers, framers, founding fathers, etc.....about what the purpose of the Second Amendment is. These are just a few of the plethora. Yet....you dont' care....or you say...."Well...if that is what they really meant" (showing your bent towards historical revisionism on the subject).

To date....how much historical documentation have you share?? Zero, zip, zilch, nada.

By the way, the internet is not "media" in the sense of watching your news or getting your news from a news magazine. The internet is a free and open exchange of ideas that, for the most part, does not go through a screening (or should I say) a bias media organization.

I also choose not to discuss it with you anymore, because guns are not the real issue. It has become apparent to me that you have the same desires as a left wing liberal when it comes to the use of courts and "reinventing" the Constitution to serve your purpose.

I know what was intended by the Second Amendment. So far, you have only given the indication that you "guessed" at what was meant.

Until you can come up with some historical documentation that show even a hint of your point of view....this discussion is extremely fruitless.

Now who wants to argue simply for the sake of argument??

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2001

Ben....

I wish you could have seen my 9 year old today shooting my 30 round clipped AR-15 Assault Rifle. I was so proud!!!!

He and my daughter and another girl from church are going to use it on a hog hunt at the end of the month. Yeah...a church sponsored hog hunt.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2001

And what have you quoted Ben??

Answer: Zip, zilch, nada, nothing. All you have done is talked about what you thought it said...or what you wished it said. But to date...you have not quoted one single source that would offer an alternative from what was presented by the quotes of the founding fathers which establish...1) that the people are the militia....and 2) The purpose of the second amendment was to protect us from the govt.

By the way....one of my favorite quotes from Thomas Jefferson is this...."The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they (i.e., the govt.) tries to take it away."

I gave you a minimum of three quotes from the founding fathers that explain what you have asked for.

Makes one question whether you even bothered reading the quotes.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2001

You're right Ben....you should have never brought up your personal experience. It's irrelevant. I've never been black either....but I support the laws that gave blacks equal protection under the law. This country is about supporting all laws....not just the ones that pertain to us.

33rd Psalm....probably written by David....the same guy known as a "gibbor?" (In the Hebrew..."gibbors" were mighty warriors...in fact a special fighting class. I believed they used real weapons???)

For the record....the Second Amendment DOES NOT guarantee that ANYONE can have a gun.

It is a felony for a convicted felon to EVEN ATTEMPT to purchase a gun.....let alone have one.

These are the laws the NRA has vigorously fought to enforce. Unfortunately, under the Clinton administration, enforcement of current gun laws has GONE DOWN....80%. (Makes you ask what the real agenda of the gun grabbers is then don't it??)

But as you have said.....since you have vigourously studied and know the intent of the NRA....they don't really mean it I guess.

Another fact for you to check out....why is it that the NRA has the overwhelming support of most law enforcement agencies throughout the country?? Could it be....they know what the NRA stands for and wants to see that agenda put forward. Police are not afraid of law abiding citizens who own guns. They are afaid of criminals who have guns and shouldn't even be on the street except for panty waisted judges who let them back out again.

I have no idea what you were talking about but not one single person I quoted even came close to supporting your position. Please cut and past the quote that supports your position. I would love to review that.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001

BTW....I've never been able to kill a deer with prayer. Always took a weapon.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001

"Long dead white males????".....oh please...is this Al Gore using Ben's name for cover??? And I thought only liberal Democrats used "race baiting!!"

Ignorance of history is what the liberals count on.

That really sealed it up there Ben credibility wise....(in addition to which there is not one bit of statistical data to support your contention of "less guns, less crime.") Anecdotal data proves nothing. But again....as you've stated you don't have time, nor do you care to study the facts.

And hunting only three weeks a year???? What world do you live in?? Try....about.....6 months a year!! :)

Ben....I really don't care that you don't like guns and wish they were outlawed. That's your opinion. But do not suggest you know what the Second Amendment means and what its intentions were....when by your own admission you do not know....and do not care to find out.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

Read the thread again Robin.

I agree with the founding fathers that the militia....is the people.

And....in all court cases throughout history that involved the Second Amendment....this is what the courts decided was the intent of the founding fathers.

What "I think" is unimportant. READ THE FRAMERS!!

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

GOOD GRIEF!!! I just went back to my very first post and the answer is right there!!!

Are we even bothering to read my post let alone the post of "long dead white guys??"

Again....if you want "my opinion" (as opposed to the "long dead white guys")....I don't have one....cause it don't matter.

All that matter is......what was the intent of the law. I think those "dead white guys" spoke more eloquently than I.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

BTW....I'm still waiting for quotes "from long dead white guys".....that dispute my "long dead white guys."

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

Robin....

It just hit me what you last post sounded like. I've heard it from peope for years. It goes like this.....

"Well...I know that's what the Bible says....BUT....what do you think it means???"

It doesn't make a hill of beans worth of difference what I THINK IT MEANS.

The ONLY THING THAT MATTERS......is what did the writer mean when he wrote it. Period!!

The same applies to the Constitution.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

Robin....

ACLU.....mostly white guys aren't they??? (Just kidding!!)

Actually, I want to thank you for giving something to work with other than...."I think"....."I feel"....ect.

I will be glad to address the discussions of the "Anti Christian Lovers Union" (otherwise known as the ACLU). I will paste their quote below....and address it in parenthesis. At the end....I will place an editorial by Paul Harvey that I found, to say the least, gripping.

"If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny" (ah ha....they admit that this is what the founders intended.)

"then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms." (I have no problem with that....and in fact....a number of private citizen do own such. A young lady in one of my college classes has twice invited me to a shoot that features...tanks, bazookas, M-60 machine guns, and flame throwers. All owned by private, law abiding citizens.)"

"Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms." (Is it really that hard to imagine?? Ask Russia, with all its modern weaponry who was not able to overthrow the Aphganistan rebels armed mostly with just small arms. However, Russia did not count on the tenacity of those who believe in freedom.)

"Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please." (As log as a person abides by the law and does harm to no one....what does the ACLU and the govt. fear?? And the fact is.....it is not a "few if any" who argue this.....many argue this.)

"But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction." (Thus myself, and others ask, "What part of "no"....do they not understand?? One must continuously ask, Robin, what is the real motive here?? I think Paul Harvey's editorial at the end here answers that.)

"The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue." (True....but there have been MANY cases which never made it past the lower courts. The fact that it has made it so few times to the Supreme Court screams out to the difficulty of trying to overturn a right guranteed by the Constitution. In fact, as you probabaly know Robin, the Clinton Administration recently, last year, attempted a law suit againt gun manufacturers much in the same manner as the tobacco suits. In those court documents they made the mistake of trying to say that the Second Amendment does not gurantee the right of private ownership of guns. It never got off the ground. It was turned down in the very first court it came to. It has no legs.)

A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said. " (Well...that obviously fell through....because....I can still buy a shotgun with less than an 18 inch barrel and a 10 shot clip. Matter of act, almost did last week.)

Robin, I'm sure that I do not need to tell you that anything the ACLU does and/or says is under suspect. Keep in mind.....these are the same people that say our kids can't pray in school.

But....I do thank you for your attempt at a logical discussion.

Now....on to Paul Harvey's editorial......

Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

CONSIDER THIS...

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8 %, and Armed robberies are up 44%.

In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.

Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns."

It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.

GOOD DAY!!!

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

Oh yeah Robin.....I just remembered.....I found out last week that a guy in our church has a rocket launcher. I think he's wanting to sell it. I'd love to make him an offer.

That would be cool on the next "Christian Church Hog Hunt".....wouldn't it Mark??

Also......50 cal. machine guns are becoming quite common at gun shows. Little rich for my blood though.....I believe around $3500.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

Ben....

Please start presenting some arguments...stats...etc....(as we have) to support your suppositions. (Take notes from Robin.)

Otherwise....I have no desire to have a discussion with someone who has no regard for the law and its original intentions.

In addition, I have no use for a discussion with someone who "race baits"....and then accuses everyone who believes in the Constitution as "wild."

Very sad.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

Ben....

It's sad when you can't even remember your own posts....let alone the ones people have taken the time to research and post in an attempt to answer your questions.

You referred to the writers of the Constitution as..."long dead white guys." That's race baiting....a very popular thing that liberals do in this country these days.

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001

"Guns don't kill people.....PEOPLE WITH GUNS kill people."

Hmmmmmmmmm.......

Alright.....let's play a little game called....."Mass Murder Trivia." If you know the answer.....post it. Here we go......

What did the following mass murderers have in common.....

Charles Manson Ted Bundy Danny Manning Jeffery Dahmer

Alright.....post....tick...tick...tick...tick...tick.....

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001

tick....tick....tick....tick....tick.....tick....

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001

Ding...ding...ding.......RIGHT!!!!!

Johnny Olson.......tell him what he's won!!!!!!

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001

Robin......

Thanks....for two things....

1) Pointing out the questionability of the quote. I plan on researching it further. In fact, that one was found from the internet.....some time ago before this discussion even ensued. However, 1 out of the two or three dozen I quoted....is a pretty good record. Should I get two or three dozen more to make up for that one??

2) Also....for linking me with such a great site!!! That place is full of even more ammo (forgive the pun).

Oh....one other thing to thank you for. That is....taking the time to research. I find it interesting......we has of yet not heard one quote that contradicts the affimration of the intent of the framers and founders.

Thanks again!!

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001

Gee....

Which one of the hundreds of other quotes will be my favorite now??

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001

Kiss Ben???? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!

Shake his hand?? You bet!!!

Connie.....when are you going to learn that people can have arguments that represent deep seated convictions....they can even have "heated" arguments.....and in the end....still respect each other as gentlemen and shake hands???

Will been and I ever be close friends?? Doubt it. But I still respect him as a gentlemen and a brother....and a fellow kingdom worker.

Of course....being a woman....I'm sure that is difficult for you to grasp.

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001

Japanese Gun Control.....it works at the expense of personal liberty.

My guess is.....people were safe in Britian before the Revoutionary War...(unless of course you rebelled against the King).

No thanks.....or to put it in the words of one of the signers of the Consitution.....

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-- Benjamin Franklin

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001

Chop sticks....a weapon Ben????

Oohhhh.....we better be quiet about that. They next thing you know....the liberals will want a 3 days waiting period in order to purchase chop sticks.

How would you put a child proof saftey lock on a set of chop sticks??

Should we license people in order to carry chopsticks??

All legitimate qeustions in light of the high risk to "our children."

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2001

Hey Ben....

Think about it.....Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns have...(even my AR 15 with the 30 round clip)!!!

LOL!!!

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2001

Oh Ben....wait till you hear a quote of Jefferson's I found today. I'll get it posted later on in the week.

Seriously....you need professional help if you miss this one.

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2001

Another quote from Thomas Jefferson (as cited by sydicated columnist Walter Williams on Jan. 24, 2001).

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Again.....let the reader understand the purpose of the Second Amendment according to the framers.....and not the revisionists.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2001

Ben...

Where does he (or any one else)....limit it??

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2001

And to date....you sir.....have not submitted a single opposing quote that shows any other meaning of the Second Amendment. NOT ONE!!

To add to that....you have resorted to the most "ad absurdum" in an attempt to support your PERSONAL VIEW of guns.

I mean....think of how ridculous it sounds. You are suggesting they had different person opinions about the Second Amendment but that differed from their views when they wrote the Second Amendment??

It has become obvious in light of your inability to provide historical documentation....that you are now grasping at straws.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Yes.....

So let it be written (which it was) - so let it be DONE!

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

I guess my doubts about your interpretation of the 2nd amendment have less to do with "is it LEGAL?" and more to do with "is it RIGHT?" I continue to be greatly disappointed with Christians who prefer hanging onto their guns to doing what is best for the country.

The 2nd amendment to the constitution may (or may not, depending on how the clause about a "well-regulated militia" is interpreted) give private citizens a virtually unrestricted right to bear arms, but I don't find any such right in the Bible. The Bible says that the government has the right to "bear the sword." Period!

Danny, you say you've looked at both sides. I haven't yet seen one iota of evidence that you have looked seriously at "the other side" -- except to look for ammunition to back up your case. For example, the British experience, taken as a whole, is not as easily brushed away as you tried to do in your previous e-mail in the other thread. I haven't seen anything about this recently, so attitudes MIGHT have changed, but I know that a number of times in the past, moves to arm the British police in general (as opposed to special anti-terrorist squads, etc.) have been strongly resisted BY THE POLICE THEMSELVES, who feel that they are safer without guns. And they are probably correct.

Most of the arguments FOR virtually unrestricted gun ownership don't hold water in today's society with today's weapons. (I wouldn't worry half as much if the types of weapons were limited to those available at the time the Bill of Rights was written.)

In the other thread, you mentioned the "gun culture" in the south. I THINK you were trying to make the point that guns are safe when they are so commonplace that everyone knows how to use them, etc. I do know what it's like to live in those kinds of areas. While I was in college I lived in S.W. Missouri, adjacent to Kansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas, for nearly 7 years. I saw lots of the sort of thing you described. I also listened to the way some people there talked about their guns and what they used them for. It scared me! -- less the guns themselves than the way some of the people who had them talked about them. I got used to it, but I never liked it. However, the areas where this sort of thing is most common are mainly rural areas and small to medium-sized towns. Have you ever lived in a large city, Danny? I mean one with a population of AT LEAST 400,000 to 500,000. (The population of the 40 acre housing project where I live is around 80,000 to 90,000, and most of the population of H.K. lives in similar density areas.) Few areas in the U.S. have anywhere near this density yet, but with so many people having moved to the cities, the vast majority of the people of the U.S. do now live in large cities. The kind of free and easy ownership and use of guns that you describe is totally inappropriate in this sort of situation. Whatever the "founding fathers" may have had in mind when they framed the 2nd amendment, it is unlikely that they foresaw such numbers of people living in cities of the size they have become today, with the density of population that they have today.

Can the Bill of Rights be amended? The rest of the Constitiution certainly can, as can other amendments. (Witness the 21st amendment revoking the 18th.) I would strongly support an amendment to the 2nd amendment to bring it into the 20th century! The Bill of Rights certainly can be "interpreted" by the Supreme Court. (They've done it multiple times with the 1st amendment.) I would strongly support the Supreme Court getting up enough "guts" to do something about interpreting the 2nd amendment to suit today's situation in the country and in the world.

By the way, I do have a gun myself -- a .22 rifle that was my wife's before we got married. I don't have it here in H.K., of course. It "resides" in my father-in-law's closet in Arkansas, where he uses it (since he doesn't have one of his own) to shoot gophers and armadillos that get at his crops. I do know how to use it and I generally get it out and practice target-shooting every other furlough or so. I have been using guns occasionally since I was around 11 years old and have also tried out various other guns when visiting other people. And I have taught my kids how to use the rifle safely -- just in case they come into contact with guns in other people's homes now that they are grown. But I wouldn't want one here, and I would be quite happy to accept registration and restrictions on the use of that one (or even to give it up entirely -- though my father-in-law would then have to find another way to deal with the pests in his garden) if the best interests of the country as a whole were served thereby, as I believe they probably would be.

Finally, a P.S. This month, and up through at least the middle of January, is an extremely busy time for me. It's only by chance that I saw this new thread you started. I had less e-mail to deal with this morning than I expected, so checked on the forum while waiting for breakfast. If you respond to what I've written and I don't answer it's not because I think your arguments are un-answerable -- rather that I probably haven't had time to answer, and maybe haven't even had time to read what you've said yet.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

By the way, the "date stamp" on these messages is misleading. I just re-read what I wrote and see it is dated December 17, i.e. Sunday. There is NO WAY I could have written something like that on a Sunday, particularly "yesterday" (for me) -- before breakfast or otherwise. We are half a day ahead of the continental U.S. and it is now Monday morning, the 18th, here. As with many preachers, my Mondays are a little more flexible than the so-called "weekend". But even Mondays are going to be full for the next few weeks.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Danny and Ben and All,

I am a pacifist and do not own a gun (will not allow one in my house) but I have come to agree (it took a lo-o-ng time) that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

HOWEVER, I believe weapons should be limited to the ones in existence at the inclusion of the second amendment ~ cannons, swords, blunderbusses, etc. If the Founding Fathers had known about Uzis, Glocks, etc., I think they'd have used much more restrictive wording.

How's that for alienating both of you from me?

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

I want a cannon too - something that shoots a 3 or 4 inch diameter ball! It would look GREAT on the front lawn.

Actually Connie, you might want to reconsider that line of thinking. The 18th Century weapons were much more crude and were a really bad way to die. Their lower power & larger size made nasty wounds, ones that are hard to patch up - even today. If I was to be shot by a criminal, I would have a better chance of survival if hit with a Glock, etc. The point of self-defense is not necessarily to kill the attacker - just to stop him from doing you harm. I would rather wound and then work to convert the perpetrator than I would kill him & have to preach his funeral.

Though flintlock pistol duels at 20 paces do hold a kind of romantic charm (at least in the classic sense) - although Alexander Hamilton might disagree.

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Flintlocks and matchlocks had a nasty habit of blowing up in the user's face as I recall. Not very effective if self-defense is your goal. Not to mention the time it took to load them.

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Hello, Mark, Danny and All,

I don't want you to be left with the impression that I am unarmed ~ Oh,no. I am armed with the Sword of the Spirit ~ the Word of God ~ and I have all of those Gideon Bibles lying about that I hand out.

You remember the Gideon Bibles, do you not, Mark?

Love in Christ, ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) <------- LOL, over and over.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

I remember them, Connie.

Since packing space was at a premium, I sent one with my oldest boy to the Air Force in June - at least until he had the time & space for his full NASB.

Happily, I can say that he has taken active roles in Churches of Christ in both Wichita Falls, TX and now Macon, GA. Good teaching shows (blush).

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

Great, Mark.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, then?

I wonder if you ever watched 'A Song to Remember'? That is one beautiful movie.

Connie

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2000

Danny,

I LIKE IT!!!!!!!

Maybe to complete the picture you can add a couple of banana clips and grenades hanging from the worker's belt....;~) I can see the Movie marquees now - PreachBo: Saving Blood I. -- The casting call for the lead role will be held in May,2001 in Deer Park, Florida!.......:~)

Actually this picture brings to mind the words Harold Moore spoke at our recent revival. He mentioned the shooting that happened a few months ago in a church and said that the day was coming when a Preacher would stand in the pulpit, call a sin, SIN; and then someone in the audience would become offended and shoot the preacher on the spot. The first thought that came to mind I whispered to my wife: "that guy is going to have to be a faster draw than I am to pull THAT off". One more good reason as to why I've applied for a consealed weapons permit.

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2000

Harold Moore is an excellent speaker. We had him at our church last year to preach and sing. :-)

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2000

John,

Yes, Harold is excellent and I highly recommend him to anyone looking for a speaker, Revivalist, etc. I got to spend some time talking with him and was really blessed by it.

-- Anonymous, December 21, 2000

Danny,

TAMPA!?! Well, I guess I did say "AT LEAST 400,000 to 500,000", so if it has grown by at least 50% since the 1990 census (UNDER 300,000 at that time), I guess it would just barely qualify by the definition I gave, but I really had in mind something more like Chicago, New York, D.C., Los Angeles, London, Bangkok, Shanghai, Hong Kong, etc.

Elswhere you said, "You [i.e. I] said 'that's not what the Second Amendment meant'......and the founding fathers proved you wrong."

I thought you would feel that way, but, despite my lack of response to your list of quotations, I still DO NOT see it that way at all.

My failure to respond earlier came from three main reasons:

1) Mainly lack of time.

2) I don't have access to much of the original writings of the "founding fathers" to check out the accuracy of your quotations, the context of the quotations, or what OTHERS of the "founding fathers" may have said on the other side of the question. Therefore you are always going to feel you have the upper hand on that side of the argument. (HOWEVER, I wonder if you yourself actually have the access you seem to imply to these sources. Did you actually find these quotations yourself in the documents in which they were written? -- not the original manuscripts, of course, but the complete essays, etc.? Or did you find them in some compilation by the NRA or its sympathisers on "what the founding fathers said in support of our position"? What about the context -- both the rest of what they said themselves, and whatever arguments from the other side that they may have been responding to?)

3) I felt that this particular line of argument was becoming a "dead end." Although I DO NOT believe you have proved your case, you are obviously so firmly convinced of it yourself that no amount of logic -- or even counter quotations if I had access to the sources to find them -- is likely to convince you. Therefore I felt that what little time I have to give to this debate was better spent on other lines of argument than continuing to pursue this one.

Have you proved your contention about the intentions of the "founding fathers"? I really think NOT.

a) There is much in the Consitution that the original framers were in NOT in unanimous agreement over. Many sections reflect compromises between various factions. I strongly suspect that this is one of them, for reasons I think will become clear.

2) You quote seven men. They may all have been "patriots" and perhaps "founding fathers" in that sense. BUT I was only able to find ONE of their names (James Madison) in the list of the signers of the Constitution. Four OTHERS were among the signers of the Declaration of Independence (J. Adams, S. Adams, Th. Jefferson, and R.H. Lee), but the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution, and, as you have insisted yourself, it is what the 2nd Amendment to the CONSTITUTION actually SAYS, and what the writers OF THAT DOCUMENT had in mind when they wrote it that is important.

3) All of your quotations are just one or two sentences in length. You neither quote the context nor describe what subject they were discussing or what they might have been responding to. Some even have bits left out of what you did quote (as shown by the dots). There is no date on any of them to offer even some kind of historical context -- except for the fact that I do recognise most of the names as those of people who were of the "era" when the War of Secession (from Britain) was fought and the Constitution written.

IF you could supply quotations, IN CONTEXT, from ALL of the ACTUAL SIGNERS of the Constitution, that clearly supported your contention that their intention was to allow unrestricted access to deadly weapons, regardless of whether a person belonged to any kind of "well regulated Militia" or not, you might convince me. Without that, I prefer to stick to the actual 2nd amendment itself -- what it actually says and what I think are reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it concerning the intention of the amendment.

I think the following are noteworthy points and reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the amendment itself.

1) Of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, ONLY ONE offers any explanation or justification for the amendment. Which one? You guessed it! The second! In fact, from a brief cursory scan of all twenty-six amendments, I think it may be the only one of all of them that is "justified" in this way. What can we deduce from this unusual fact? Two things, at least -- (a) that probably there was some dissent, and those who wanted this amendment felt obliged to include their justification for it in order to get it passed, and (b) that this initial clause also shows the clear intention of the majority when it was passed -- that bearing arms was not necessarily for the purpose of private self-defense, but for the purpose of being a part of a "well-regulated militia."

2) The fact that not only is the need for a militia mentioned, but it is specified that it must be a "WELL REGULATED" militia is significant and also must have some meaning. To me this lays a clear foundation for requiring, first, that any militia formed must be a "well regulated" one (otherwise it stands outside of the provisions of this amendment), and, second, for requiring that all people who want to bear arms must belong to such a militia, since an armed rabble, without discipline or regulation, would be even further outside of the intention of the amendment than an "un-regulated" militia would be.

3) Even though the second half of the amendment seems to grant more than is clearly intended by the introductory statement justifying it, I think it is significant that they used the word "infringed" ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"). "Infringed" is a fairly stong word. It has the idea of "violating", "transgressing against", "trespassing upon", etc. "Not infringing" upon rights is not necessarily contrary to the concept of "regulation" of those rights -- regulation of the qualifications of those who can carry weapons, what kinds of weapons it is reasonable for a private individual to carry, the circumstances in which they can carry them, etc.

Actually, you yourself SEEM to have accepted some degree of regulation. Why not be consistent about it and allow a safer level of regulation and enforcement?

And now I MUST go. I have house guests coming in a few days and my house looks like a combination between an office and a warehouse -- not really the kind of setting where my wife likes to entertain guests. So I've got a lot of tidying to do.

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2000

BTW, "stong" in the third paragraph from the end of my last submission (in "'Infringed' is a fairly stong word"), should, of course by "strong" -- "Infringed" is a fairly strong word."

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2000

And "by" should be "be" in my last. And I'm not actually writing on Christmas Day. It is already "Boxing Day" here, since we are 12 to 16 hours ahead of the continental U.S. And I think I'd better quit looking back at what I've written or this could go on forever!

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2000

Danny,

As usual, you fail to address anything of substance in what I have written.

For example:

1) If you were trying to demonstrate what the people who designed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights meant by it, why is ONLY ONE of the "founding fathers" that you quoted from among the signers of the Constitution? What did the others who actually DID sign the Constitution think of this matter?

2) If there was such great unanimity as to the need for the 2nd amendment and what it meant, why is it the ONLY amendment that the writers felt necessary to justify in a kind of preamble?

3) Since the STATED JUSTIFICATION of the 2nd amendment is that a "well-regulated militia" is "necessary" to a free society, how is that purpose served by allowing anyone and everyone to possess and use firearms (without any regulation at all?) regardless of whether or not they belong to any militia or have any intention of belonging to any sort of militia, much less a "well regulated" one?

4) (From a previous posting) If dictatorship and gun control necessarily go hand in hand (for which you offer ONE historical example), what about the fact that many free countries (including Canada, Britain, many other European countries, and Hong Kong) have quite strict and strictly enforced gun control laws, while in many Communist countries, including mainland China, guns are quite readily available to the populace?

Instead of giving substantive answers to significant questions like this, you pull things out of context to invent fallacies that don't exist so that you can appear to have the upper hand in the argument by giving easy answers to these straw men.

For example, you said --

"The biggest problem I see with your last post...."

You say that's the "biggest problem" in my last post, and then attack one of the smallest points in it -- my question about who compiled this list of quotations, you yourself, or the NRA or some similar organisation. If that's the biggest problem with my last post, can I take it that you accept the validity of the rest of it?!? It doesn't look that way from what you say later.

(Here's the rest of what you said there, in case anyone wants to see it in context without looking back: "The biggest problem I see with your last post....is it guilty of faulty logic known as the ;Genetic fallacy.' That is....you give the false impression to your listeners that because you can tell the origin of something you can, therefore, call into question the logic or truthfulness of a statement. What difference does it make who gathered the information.....as long as the information is factual??? If we start going down that line of thinking than upon what basis do we trust any historical quote and/or information?? Even Satan himself at times speaks truth in the Bible.")

For the record, I DID NOT ask that question to "call into question the logic or truthfulness of a statement." I did it because you have several times said that you have not just looked at the one side of this question but have taken a serious look at all sides of the issue. I have several times asked you about the extent of your "research" on the other side, and you have never answered. Instead you gave this "impressive" list of quotations from people of the time period when the 2nd amendment was written. This gives the appearance of "scholarship" and "knowledge" -- and yet, as I suspected, and you admitted, it is all taken from a collection of quotations put together by and endorsed by people who favour this side of the issue. Not only that, but you apparently hadn't checked yourself as to how many of those you quote had signed the Constitution.

I repeat, I was not and am not "call[ing] into question the logic or truthfulness of [the] statement[s]." What I was and am calling into question is two things -- (1) whether the extent of your research and experience is really as extensive as you would like us to believe, and (2) whether the quotations prove as much as you would like us to believe about the intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights, since they are drawn from a compilation made by a biassed source.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

Danny,

If you leave out IRA-related violence (and the IRA is largely armed by supporters in the U.S., who either provide the weapons directly or the money to buy weapons), Britain, even now, has less ARMED violence than areas of the U.S. with similarly dense populations. And remember that Britain has had UNARMED police for over a century! (I can't speak for the actual state of gun laws, but they have had some kind of gun laws for a long time.)

It is not an "ad hominem" to ask that the people on the other side in a debate reply to substantive questions/arguments with equally substantive answers or counter arguments. Nor is it an "ad hominem" to point out when they are attacking "straw men" on your side.

I have absolutely NO problem with 'an NRA supported policy of......."ZERO TOLERANCE AND 100 PERCENT PROSECUTION OF CRIMINALS WHO USE GUNS??'" I just have serious doubts that this is what they REALLY stand for. If this is what they are REALLY for, why not "put their money where their mouth is"? Why not put more of their money and propaganda into promoting this? -- rather than so much into arguing AGAINST any kind of gun control that the "teeth" are taken out of what could be effective laws, and authorities are afraid to carry out effective enforcement because the perception created by the propaganda that the NRA and similar bodies put out is that these powerful lobby organisations will not support them.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

Danny, you said, "You have made sweeping generalizations....then when pointed out that you are wrong....you simply ignore it...or question the intent."

That's funny! That's exactly the feeling I was getting from your postings. You are partly right: I haven't expended a huge amount of time to check out your sources. I felt it was up to you to demonstrate their veracity and relevance. But neither have you given much effort -- if any! -- to check on the things I have said. Instead you make sweeping statements about rising crime in Britain, etc. So I guess we are probably about even on that score.

You also said, "You have zero..zilch...nada right to make any statements about the NRA and how they spend their money when YOU DO NOT HAVE THE FAINTEST IDEA!!! "

I don't have enough time or interest in the NRA to want to ask for their financial reports, etc. What I can speak for is that EVERY ad or news release or quotation from a press conference that I have EVER seen from the NRA was about one of two things: (1) anti-gun control in one way or another, or (2) teach your kids how to use guns safely -- and let us show you how. I have NEVER EVER seen an ad or news release from the NRA that even mentioned the things you mentioned (e.g. making sure that criminals who use firearms are punished severely enough and consistently enough to serve as a deterrent).

It is true that since I live outside the U.S. I don't see every ad the NRA runs, but we do get U.S. magazines here, which I read occasionally, and we see many U.S. magazines, newspapers, etc. whenever we visit the U.S., which is currently about every 2 years now that our kids are both in college. And BTW, I never said anything (no "sweeping statements") about everything the NRA says or does with their money. If you will look back, you will find that I was fairly careful to confine what I said to the "public perception" of the NRA, based on their "public face", so to speak, i.e. the impressions they give through their ads, news releases, press conferences, etc. Do you deny that the perceptions I have are also the perceptions of a great many Americans?

Whether those perceptions are right or wrong, justified or unjustified, etc., is not necessarily the issue. These are the perceptions people get from what the NRA does and says. If those perceptions are inaccurate, then the NRA ought to take a hard look at what they are doing and see if they can turn this around. BTW, your own statements in these fora tend, in my mind, to re-inforce the stereotype rather than to "correct" it in any way.

You said, "It is not the purpose of the Surpeme Court to rewrite the law Ben. It is their job to interpret. Period."

I wholeheartedly agree. But that means interpreting the WHOLE of the second amendment -- interpreting the second half of it not in isolation, but in the context of the first half. Contrary to what I think you think, what we have in this forum is NOT so much a case of you affirming the 2nd amendment and me denying it, as it is of two DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS. You interpret it (or seem to) to allow virtually unrestricted access to firearms by virtually anyone. I interpret the right to bear arms to be one intended primarily, if not exclusively, for those who are in or might reasonably be expected to be in a "well regulated militia." Since the Supreme Court has the right to "interpret", if they ruled in favour of my interpretation they would NOT be "rewriting" the law, but simply doing their job of "interpreting" -- even if you don't happen to agree with the particular interpretation they give.

Are you at all interested in convincing me on this issue, or do you just like to argue for argument's sake?

I don't think you will EVER convince me that having the kind of virtually unrestricted access to firearms that you seem to want is a GOOD thing! You MIGHT convince me, or come close to convincing me, that your interpretation of the original intention of the writers of the 2nd amendment is accurate. But you won't do it with your present approach.

You will not convince me by heaping quotation on quotation from famous people who lived at the time the amendment was written, because --

1) As I've pointed out previously, quoting contemporary figures -- no matter how famous they were -- who had no direct part in writing or signing the Bill of Rights says nothing whatsoever about the intentions of those who did right it.

2) As I've pointed out previously, you have only offered isolated quotations, from selected writers, taken out of context, and even with gaps indicated in the quotation as given. This is like "proof-texting" the Bible. It doesn't show what other equally prominent people of the time may have thought, and doesn't even show the totality of what these particular writers may have thought on the subject. You are right that I can't PROVE that there was dissent unless I come up with the dissenting voices. But neither can you PROVE that these quotations are as significant as you want us to think unless you go a lot further than you have so far in filling in the gaps in the quotations, giving a larger context for the statements, etc. And the "burden of proof" for THAT is on you.

3) Most, if not all, of the quotations give the writer's personal opinion about arms. They do not speak directly to the question of the intent of the 2nd amendment.

4) If you look at the quotations closely, a number of them would fit just as well with my interpretation of the 2nd amendment as with yours. They do not necessarily contradict it. I do not object totally to firearms, even to the private ownership of firearms -- only to inadequate regulation and control of the ownership and use of firearms.

5) I think that the historical context of these quotations is important. Many of these men had had a part in the war that had so recently preceded the drafting of the Constitution. It is therefore natural that they would want to preserve some kind of right to take arms against perceived tyranny. If it hadn't been for this background, the 2nd amendment might never have been written. It was written, but what does it mean? Most of the Constitution includes checks and balances -- balancing this right against this other one, and preventing lopsided situations where there is too much power or too much freedom on one side. That's how I see the 2nd amendment. The 2nd part allows private ownership and use of weapons; the 1st part states what they are for (a "militia") and something about how this is to operate (it is to be "well-regulated"). To me it seems that it might ALLOW the kind of situation you want, but it does not forbid the kind of situation that I prefer, as long as the right to bear arms is not limited (or "abridged") any further than that.

So you won't convince me by merely heaping quotation upon quotation. However, if you are interested in convincing me, there is one thing you might try -- which you haven't yet -- and which MIGHT convince me (depending on how logical and sensible your argument is, of course).

I have been operating on the assumption that the writers and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights were intelligent men, skilled in the use of the English language, and that what they wrote and ratified was there for a purpose.

If the second half of the 2nd amendment stood on its own, I might not like it, but I would have a hard time denying that it meant what you say it means. But it doesn't stand alone. It is preceded by the first half. That first half MUST have a meaning and a purpose. I think the fact that it is there is especially significant in view of the fact that it is the ONLY amendment in the Bill of Rights -- probably the only amendment to the Constitution -- that gives such a "preamble" to explain what it is for.

If that first part doesn't mean what I think it does, i.e. if it does NOT allow for some regulation of the ownership and use of firearms, allowing them (not necessarily requiring, but at least allowing) to be restricted to use by a "well regulated militia", then WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

*IF* you can provide an explanation that is logical and sensible as to what that first clause is for, what it means, and why it is so specific (a "well regulated militia"), then you might convince me that you are right about the intended meaning of the 2nd amendment.

If not, then we'd probably better call a truce, because without that you will never convince me. And I doubt if I'm going to convince you, since you seem even less willing to take an objective look at the facts on the "other side" than you accuse me of being on my side.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2001

Danny,

Another sweeping generalisation from your side.

1) I don't think I mentioned the word "media". If I did, I'm sure you'll tell me, but I deliberately tried to avoid the word because I suspected that might be your reaction, and in looking back right now, I can't find it in what I have said.

2) What I did do was to mention specific media as sources for specific information. (BTW, When I quoted personal experiences at one early point, you didn't like that either. If a person can't use personal experiences or "the media" -- see below for a definition of "media" -- what sources of information is one to use?!?)

3) If you read my posting with any degree of understanding and discernment, you should have seen that the specific instance where I referred to mass media was one where this is certainly relevant. What are my perceptions and the general public perceptions about what the NRA does? I've mentioned them and you disputed them. But I wasn't talking so much about what they actually do as about what the public perception -- and my own -- is about what they do. So what are my own perceptions (and, I suspect, those of many people) based on? ON THE ADS AND NEWS RELEASES *IN THE MASS MEDIA* -- PUT THERE BY THE NRA ITSELF!!

4) In case you don't know it, all "media" is is the plural of "medium", i.e. a medium of communication (usually mass communication in common usage). You quoted "media" too, as sources for some of your information. A book is a medium of mass communication. The internet (you said you did an internet search) is a medium of mass communication -- and a frequently misleading one at that.

Finally, I take it that my perceptions about you and your intentions are correct -- that you are continuing this argument NOT because you have any desire to actually convince anyone, BUT RATHER because you simply like argument for argument's sake.

As I said before, I am going by the assumption that the "framers" of the 2nd amendment wrote what they did -- ALL that they did -- for reasons. My interpretation takes BOTH halves of the amendment into consideration. I have yet to see a convincing explanation from people on your side -- no, I take that back; I have yet to see ANY EXPLANATION AT ALL from your side -- as to how the first part of the amendment fits in and what it means if it does not have implications like those that I believe it does.

Do you care to try to address that question, or would you rather continue making "sweeping generalisations" and "ad hominems" like your last posting?

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2001

Danny,

I have had believers in "faith only" quote MANY "proof texts" to "prove" their point of view. But I don't accept it, because the Bible ALSO plainly says that repentance and baptism are necessary for salvation.

I have had believers in "eternal security" quote MANY "proof texts" to me to "prove" their point of view that it is not possible for someone who has once "accepted Christ" to lose his/her salvation. I don't accept that either, because the Bible ALSO has many warnings against that very thing -- straying so far away from Christ that they do endanger and ultimately lose their salvation.

You have quoted many "proof texts" from "signers, framers, founding fathers, etc." to support your point of view. But so far you have NOT ONCE addressed what is to me the primary "sticking point". The first part of the 2nd amendment plainly says that the reason for the amendment is because a "well regulated militia" is necessary. Show me some reasonable explanation OF THE AMENDMENT ITSELF that fits both parts together and makes sense of why guns should be permitted without regulation for any and every OTHER purpose apart from the purpose stated IN THE AMENDMENT ITSELF, and I might begin to accept your position.

Until you can do that, all the other quotations that you throw at me are just as superfluous as those from the Bible thrown at me by believers in faith only or eternal security. They are disproved by the Bible itself -- and your position on the 2nd amendment is disproved by the amendment itself (when read as a whole).

I've asked this question several times, but I only get more of the same from you (more superfluous quotations or more sweeping statements about situations that you know little about, and more "name calling" of those who honestly disagree with you), with NO answer to this question about fitting the two parts of the amendment together. I've come to the conclusion that you have no answer to this important point.

If that is the case, then I certainly agree with you that this discussion is becoming fruitless.

BTW, the internet may not fit your personal definition of a "medium" (singular of "media"), but it certainly fits dictionary definitions and is also the source of a tremendous amount of VERY misleading "information" these days. It can be a good tool, but the old computer acronym "GIGO" is extremely apt.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2001

Danny,

I read the quotations. As I said previously, with a very few exceptions, most of them are equally compatible with my interpretation. SO .... back to the amendment itself and what it SAYS.

I frankly don't see any point in spending time -- on an issue that barely even affects me directly -- to throw quotation against quotation. The key issue is what does the amendment SAY and what does LOGIC show to be the most likely meaning. Your interpretation takes the second half in isolation and IGNORES the first half.

I long ago came to the conclusion that you have no answer for the key question of how the first half fits in, or, for that matter, for several other points I raised. You just keep parotting the same lines over and over, ad infinitum ... ad nauseum.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001

I've debated whether or not to raise this. I think it is relevant, but I didn't want to get a patronising reaction ... "Oh, so that's the reason ...." It's not. I would hold the views I do regardless of this. But it is relevant.

Danny, have you ever been shot at? In peace time? I have .... when I was about 9 or 10 years old!! It wasn't in the U.S., but in a country with a similar attitude toward guns. It couldn't have happened in Hong Kong. It's an experience that should never happen to ANY kid!!

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001

Perhaps I should clarify the two sides of my beliefs on this issue.

IF the amendment means what I really believe it does when you apply the logical implications of the first half of the amendment to the second half, and IF legislation is put into place -- and properly enforced -- to allow gun ownership to those who are in or could legitimately be expected to serve in a "well regulated militia", and to put reasonable limits on gun ownership by others who do not fit into this category .... THEN I don't think it is an unreasonable amendment.

HOWEVER, IF it is interpreted to allow virtually anyone who wants a gun to have one, THEN I think it is a very BAD law and either needs to be repealed or itself amended to make clear the restriction that I think is already there in the first part.

The 2nd amendment -- indeed, the U.S. Constitution as a whole -- is NOT the Bible. It is a human document that can be re-shaped to fit changing circumstances. Other amendments have clarified or changed other things (including a precedent of one amendment repealing another). Why not this one?

To reiterate in less words: IF the 2nd amendment does imply the restrictions that I think it does, it is reasonable, and I could certainly live with that. IF it really does mean what Danny seems to think it means, then it needs to be either amended to limit it to the meaning I think it has, or repealed entirely.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001

"No king is saved by the size of his army;

no warrior escapes by his great strength.

A horse is a vain hope for deliverance;

despite all its great strength it cannot save.

But the eyes of the LORD are on those who fear him,

on those whose hope is in his unfailing love,

to deliver them from death

and keep them alive in famine.

We wait in hope for the LORD;

he is our help and our shield.

In him our hearts rejoice,

for we trust in his holy name.

May your unfailing love rest upon us, O LORD,

even as we put our hope in you."

Psalm 33:16-22

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001

Ben,

I can confirm with you what Danny said about Law Enforcement Agencies in the US is absolutely true. They do indeed support the NRA, the rights of citizens to own their own weapons, and even the right to legally bare concealed weapons. As personal evidence I submit the following:

1. Just last week I had to renew my Federal Security Clearance with the folks at Cape Canaveral. While there, getting inspected, injected, neglected, & selected - I had to be finger-printed for Federal records. I am currently applying for a Consealed Weapons Permit with the State of Florida (which also has a finger-printing requirement) so I asked the official if they would "double up" on the fingerprints for my weapons documentation. They were exceedingly glad to do so - touting the benefits of having such permits in the hands of trustworthy citizens.

2. Several years ago my wife witnessed, reported, & subsequently caused the arrest of 2 people who burglarized the house across the street. Unfortunately, there was a third party to this "gang" who was not there that day and was not arrested. This person began stalking my wife where ever she went. Fearing for her life, she contacted the authorities which came out to our house. The first question they asked us is "do you have your own protection?"...ie, do you own a gun to protect yourself? In other words, they could not and would not provide constant protection for my family - and the laws would not allow them to intervene in the situation until he actually attacked my wife or children; and by then it would be too late. I bought a pistol the very next day and it stays with the family - all of which know how it use it VERY well. And trust me, this is not paranoia - when these criminals were due up for parole, they called my house collect from the prison to let us know they would be back.

Ben, were it not for the 2nd Amendment as it was designed and as it should remain - there is no doubt that my wife would have been raped or murdered or both 4 or 5 years ago because of this situation. That is not, and never will be acceptable in my book, nor do I believe it acceptable in God's book either.

Danny is right in saying that personal experience isn't the deciding factor here - law is law, reguardless of what you think about it. But if you want to argue personal experience in the matter, I got it and I know many more who do as well.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001

My contention is that where guns are strictly controlled (by legislation that is adequate and ENFORCED), there is infinitely less need to have guns for self defence -- because far fewer criminals are able to get hold of guns.

This is borne out not just by my personal experience, but by the experience of many countries. Make a serious comparison of the countries that have strict -- and strictly enforced -- gun laws and those that don't. Don't fault me for not looking for quotations from long dead white males if you won't look into the current statistics of the situation in countries around the world. Countries that have and enforce strict gun laws are much safer places to live.

And Danny, quit clouding the issue by bringing up hunting. It isn't necessary to keep a gun by your side in your house all year to use one for hunting a few weeks out of the year. There are such things as hunt clubs, which could keep all members' firearms locked up except when in use for actual hunting.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

Yep.... I have been following this thread... Although there is more 'mud-slinging' than anything else! :-)

Anyway, Danny, Ben has indicated a couple of times something like "your interpretation takes the second half in isolation and IGNORES the first half. " I don't believe I have seen you answer this.... What is your understanding/interpretation of the first half?

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

Wow! You are on a roll....

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

First Off, Danny... I am not an ACLU supporter... so please try to refrain from accusations... and stick to information I am about to present. I do not necessarily agree or disgree with it... but do find it interesting.... (OK... got your attention now!) If my last post of a simple question got 4 repsonses... I just wonder how many this one will get?!

"If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction. " -ACLU So, what constitutes "reasonable restriction"?

"The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said. " -ACLU

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

To those who REALLY care to know more about the Constitution and specifically about the 2nd Amendment, here are a few websites to check out. They've said better than I could put down here on my own, so check 'em out - carefully:

This one is the general info site -a lot of good articles all around

http://www.claremont.org/1_americon.cfm

This one deals specifically with the 2nd Amendment:

http://www.claremont.org/second_amendment.cfm

Here's a quote from this site to whet your appetite:

10 Myths Concerning Gun Control:

The national homicide, gun homicide, robbery and gun robbery rates, as well as the percentage of guns involved in aggravated assault, have not significantly increased from what they were in 1974. However, the number of firearms in this country increased 75 percent between 1974-1994, for a total of nearly 236 million guns. While the number of guns steadily increased in this country between 1974-1994, half of that time the homicide and robbery rates were decreasing, the other half they were increasing, resulting in no net change. The proliferation of firearms during this period cannot be held responsible for an increase in the violent crime rate when in fact there has been no such increase. Furthermore, since 1994, the homicide rate has continued to drop, hitting a low in 1996 not seen since 1969……one finds that while the number of guns increased 75 percent between 1974 and 1994, the number of fatal gun accidents involving children ages 0-14 years decreased 65 percent over the same period. Understandably, fatal gun accidents involving children tend to generate heavy publicity. This disproportionate press coverage often implies that the majority of accidental deaths of children is caused by firearms. In reality however, between 1993-1996, fatal gun accidents accounted for less than 4 percent of all the accidental deaths involving children under fifteen. Furthermore, firearm accidents involving children under age 10 constituted just over 1 percent of accidental children deaths in this age group from 1993- 1995.

And Ben, here is an article just for you:

http://www.claremont.org/publications/wheeler000918.cfm

Here is a sample quote: "Moreover, the Second Amendment is based on the British 1688 Bill of Rights and is related to right-to-bear-arms provisions in Framing-era state constitutions. The British right must have been individual; there were no states in England. Same for the state constitutional rights; a right mentioned in a state Bill of Rights, which protects citizens against the state government, can't belong to the state itself. So in the Framing era, the "right to bear arms" meant an individual right.

What about the militia? The Second Amendment secures a "right of the people," not of the militia; but in any event, as the Supreme Court held in 1939, the Framers used "militia" to refer to all adult able- bodied males under age 45. Even today, under the 1956 Militia Act, all male citizens between 18 and 45 are part of the militia. (Women are probably also included, given the Supreme Court's sex-equality precedents.) "Well-regulated militia" in late 1700s parlance meant the same thing -- "the body of the People capable of bearing Arms," which is how an early proposal for the amendment defined it. And the individual-rights view is the nearly unanimous judgment of all the leading 1700s and 1800s commentators and cases.

Danny,

While I don't have $3500 for a .50cal machine gun - I might find $2500 for this bad boy:

http://gunsareus.com/LARGrizzlyBigBoar.htm

One point of interest concerning the "hardcore", machinegun-type weaponry mentioned - my understanding that in order to own one legally, one has to give up one of their basic American rights, the right of Search & Seizure. How's that for Liberal political selectivism?

If the Liberals have the right to take away my right to own a gun, then conversely I have the right to take away their right to vote. If not, why not? Besides, as Florida proved - most of them are to stupid to vote anyway.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

Mark,

I realised overnight that there's something missing from your earlier posting.

You said, "... were it not for the 2nd Amendment as it was designed and as it should remain - there is no doubt that my wife would have been raped or murdered or both 4 or 5 years ago because of this situation."

Tell us the rest of the story. Tell us how many times these guys stormed your house. Tell us the exciting saga of how many shots you fired and how many people you killed or wounded as they vainly attempted to get at your wife.

Or is mere gun ownership some kind of magic amulet that automatically wards off evil-doers? Something like garlic against vampires?

OOPS! I'm starting to stoop to Danny's level and "answer" with ridicule. But maybe some arguments deserve ridicule.

Danny,

If "the militia....is the people", why is it wrong to make sure that their ownership and use of firearms (and the rest of their conduct?) is "well regulated"? -- as the 2nd amendment specifies.

*IF* you guys want me to accept that the amendment means what YOU think it means, then give me a reasonable explanation of how the WHOLE of the first clause fits with the part you like -- the second part.

*IF* you want me to accept that the kind of barely fettered ownership and use of arms that you are so fond of is a "good" thing, show me good comparisons of the situation regarding deaths and woundings by firearms in countries around the world that have and enforce strict gun laws and those that don't.

DON'T quote scare stories of how this group or that group was exterminated because their guns were confiscated. Sure that has happened, but can you prove that they would not have been exterminated anyway, and/or that there might not have been a bloody civil war, with even larger numbers killed? And what about the many countries around the world that have strict gun laws but without having exterminated anyone?

Regarding the alleged support of the NRA by law enforcement agencies -- I wonder how many people are in law enforcement because that's the way they think anyway. They like guns and like the "macho" feel of carrying one openly. I knew a guy like that. He was night watchman at Ozark Bible College at the time, but had been in the police and, I think, the army. He was gun crazy and also rather careless, I thought, about how he handled guns. (I don't know if the college administration knew of or approved of his carrying firearms on campus. I rather suspect not.) I know it would probably be much too broad a generalisation to say that all police, etc., are like that. But it does give reason for taking the "fact" that you keep quoting with the proverbial "grain of salt."

And what about other sectors of society who have to deal with the results of people carrying guns? One of my cousins and his wife are staying with us right now. She is a nurse and is VERY strongly against gun ownership. Doctors and nurses have the job of patching people up after they are wounded by guns.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

Ben,

Your vulgarity is embarrassing! There is nothing enticing or exciting about sitting in our house waiting for these scum to come back. There is nothing romantic about defending your family from the scum of the earth. If they don't come back - great, I'm ahead of the game. If they do come back - they're gonna get the chance to see their maker a lot sooner than they planned. That's it - period. I don't want or like it that way, but that is the way they want it - my hand is forced BECAUSE Law Enforcement officials are only equiped to help the victims (past tense).

But.............without the 2nd Amendment as accepted by the writers of the Constitution,without a means of self-defense - I'll have to watch as they rape my wife before my eyes, then brutally murder her & my son before they finish up with me. If this is acceptable to you, then you have allowed yourself to become much more perverted than anything the Nation of Israel ever managed to be.

You may be willing to sacrifice the lives of your family because you are willing to snub your nose at the very foundation that well over 1 million Americans have given their lives to protect - but I am not and will never be able of doing such.

Does your family appreciate your willingness to allow them to be brutalized and murdered for "principles" that you don't even understand nor can LOGICALLY defend?

By the way, why is it OK for you to give "Personal examples" without ridicle, while you obscenely attack a very serious threat on my family?

You still ask about all the countries that have bans - that only shows either.....1. You didn't bother reading the links I sent (which shows excellent scholarship on your part) or...2.You just dismiss anyone else's documentation that disagrees with your opinion (which shows a small mind typical of Liberals everywhere). The same goes for your nurse relation - did not you see the Doctors' articles defending the Amendment? Human suffering & death is NEVER to be desired, but IF given the choice, anyone with a scrap of decency would rather have the perpetrator injured rather than an innocent victim. Sin brings its own reward.

Ben, bottom line here - you have lost touch with the reality of living in the US and the meaning of the Laws that govern it- which may or may not be a bad thing (there are a lot of things not to be desired here). But if you are going to argue points that deal with what is happening here, you either need to listen to the eyewitnesses or shut up. Does that sound rude - for the sake of my raped wife, I hope so.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

Mark, if you didn't want your wife and family commented on, you shouldn't have mentioned them. Things lacking in logic don't become any more logical because they are attached to emotionally charged situations. And you shouldn't attack someone for pointing out the lack of logic.

I didn't fault you for presenting a personal example -- I faulted you for drawing a conclusion out of it that was not logically warranted by the facts presented. As for my own personal example. I threw that in mainly because Danny seemed to be talking as though I was sitting in some "ivory tower" somewhere, separated from the "real world." But since I did present it, you are welcome to comment on it. I said I WAS shot at (not "might have been", like your case -- "I might have had to defend my family"), in a country with a similar attitude towards guns as that of the U.S., and that that experience is something I felt should not happen to any kid. Find anything illogical about that and you are welcome to say so.

Danny, you quoted Paul Harvey. Here's something from another well-known radio commentator. Alistair Cooke is a Briton who has lived in the U.S. for 60 years or so. He has a weekly 15 minute "Letter from America" that is broadcast on the BBC and then relayed by a variety of other stations around the world. You might be able to get it on some PBS station there.

His last "letter" was about the economy, and rather dry and boring at that, but at the end, after pointing out some logical "non-sequitor", he threw in the following (paraphrased, since I didn't get it down word-for-word): "It's like the slogan from the gun lobby -- 'Guns don't kill people; people kill people.' That's illogical. The truth is, people WITH GUNS kill people."

The other popular gun-lobby bumper sticker is equally lacking in logic and factual foundation: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." That's nonsense! First, every country, no matter how strict their gun laws does make provision for some people to hold and use guns if they have a really good reason to do so. Second, even if some "outlaws" do continue to have guns, the numbers will be far fewer if there are far fewer guns generally available.

Someone said that what I said about "anyone and everyone" having access to guns is not true because it is illegal for convicted felons to own guns. That's a law that is and always will be impossible to enforce as long as guns are so easily available to everybody else. Drastically cut down on the number of weapons generally available, and you will eventually cut down on the number of weapons available to criminals, which will eventually cut down on the number of weapons held by criminals. It takes time for this to really take effect, but the result in the end is a safer society across the board. One of you mentioned the Australian experiment. It is too soon to judge the long-term effects of that. I hope they don't give up too soon.

Danny, stick to facts. When did I "race bait"? and when did I accuse anyone who believes in the Constitution of being "wild"? Insults, labels ("liberal") and stereotypes are easy to throw around, but they are not valid arguments, and in this case they are not true.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

Ben,

Sounding brass and tinkling cymbals!

Your words have no basis in fact - they are shadows without substance, and therefore mean nothing.

The rape of my last post was not a physical rape - it was a Verbal Rape administered against my wife by an man who CALLS himself a Christian, but shows himself otherwise. You have wronged my family with your callouse remarks and an apology is due - not that I would expect it from you. You ought to consider yourself fortunate that I would not let my wife get to the keyboard when she read your trash - she would not have been nearly as "complementary" as I was.

Forgive him Lord, for he knows not what he does!

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

ooh...ooh...ooh.....I know......I know.........

None of them used guns to perpetrate their murders with.

Like I said to another small-minded Liberal in another thread, when it comes to the committing of crimes, guns don't matter - it's the people that are at fault. "Does it make you feel better because they were pushed out of windows instead of shot?" Give Me A Break!

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001

We have to wonder sometimes what the answer should be. (I have some very definite views on gun control, and they usually differ from everyone.)

The last couple of posts for some reason brought to mind a snippet of the show "La Femme Nakita" (I think I spelled it right). The premise of the show is kinda dumb: a woman saved from death row by the gov't to be a professional assassin. Anyway, she was getting ready to go to "work," when she was assaulted by a serial killer/rapist. The jist of the scene was 'boy did he pick a wrong victim.' She proceeded to clean his clock (using marital arts) then put her assassin pistol to his forehead, essentially ending the entire situation.

How does this apply to real life? Well, it doesn't. But what if, just for the sake of argument, instead of raising generations of children (especially women) to be sheep led to the slaughter by psychos like Dahlmer and friends, they were able to defend themselves. Interesting concept, huh? I know its off the subject, but just something I think about sometimes. How much crime would be in the slums of Chicago or New York if the law-abiding citizens carried firearms and policed their own streets?

Just a thought.

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001

And an EXCELLENT thought at that, Dr. Jon!

And very MUCH on the subject here. Self-defense is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment - defending oneself from personal harm, from their own corrupted gov't (should that happen), and from enemies outside our borders.

Taking this right away makes us all a nation of victims waiting to happen - which is EXACTLY what the Liberal Agenda is, making us helpless and therefore dependant on them.

Ain't gonna happen to this "middle-aged white guy".

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001

Danny,

Above you have said, "By the way....one of my favorite quotes from Thomas Jefferson is this...."The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they (i.e., the govt.) tries to take it away.""

While searching the 'Net (a realm of information AND mis-information) for items related to this discussion, I came across a site (and NOT an anti-gun site) putting forth 'Bogus Quotes Attributed to the Founders' (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html).... Needless to say at this point, your favorite quote is there.

I know you would want to be the first to quit using your "favorite quote" if it... isn't.

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001

'Have gun, will travel, will insult, will argue, etc., but will not hug (because I'm 'packing'), nor greet with a holy kiss'.

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001

Danny,

Your question concerning Mass Murderers and their methods really got me to thinking (probably not a good thing). After a little research, I've come to the conclusion that we may have been discussing the wrong point here.

Gun control isn't the issue we should be concerned with. With Dahmer's propensity for eating parts of his victims and with all the historical accounts of murders and mass murders being conducted via food (poisonings ala Jonestown) - there is a much bigger problem.

We need to be lobbying for Fork & Knife Control! These brutal weapons of destruction need to be eliminated from our society before we eat ourselves into oblivion. All families in the USA should be forced to register or turn in all of their eating utensils before irreparable harm is done to the fabric of our society.

Soft plastic Chopsticks should now be made the only legal means of feeding oneself. These can easily be distributed by all Public School Dieticians, Gov't Housing Authorities, and Soup Kitchen Supervisors. Being in Hong Kong, I think that this is the point Ben has been trying to make all along, as all of the nations that do not use forks and knives at the dinner table have proven to be safer places to live.

Does this sound ludicrous? 'Nuff said.

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001

Danny,

Yes, that site ( http://www.guncite.com/index.html ) has an amazing amount of information. On one of its pages, I found this reference: "Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). " Here is the address: (http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/Japanese_Gun_Control.htm). This was a Very Interesting article about Gun Culture in Japan, etc. I'm guessing this is somewhat similar to Hong Kong?

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001

I've been too busy for the last week to spend any time in this forum at all -- much less to spend time following a thread that is not only going nowhere but increasingly descending into the irrelevant, the absurd (chopsticks!), the pointlessly gruesome (Jeffrey Dahmer! -- I'm surprised you didn't also include Attila the Hun, etc.), and personal insults.

I did come back today to see if things had improved any. They haven't! I should probably just continue to ignore things. I get the feeling, however, that Mark W's feelings of outrage are genuine -- completely unjustified in my opinion, but genuine -- so I think I ought to respond to that, and I may as well answer a couple of other things at the same time.

Mark, I am sorry that you feel offended. If the WAY that I expressed my point caused you pain, I am sorry about that. However, even the WAY that I expressed it was much softer, in my opinion, than the insults that you used to "answer" it, calling into question my love and concern for my family. If apologies are needed, you certainly owe me a "strong" one.

As for the CONTENT of what I said, I still stand by that, provided the facts were as I understood them. If not, perhaps you can correct me. Here is what I understood.

I told of an incident that happened to me when I was about 9 or 10 years old. I was shot at by a man with a rifle who apparently didn't like what I was doing, although I was on public land and was not doing anything illegal or immoral, or that caused harm or inconvenience to anyone. I made three comments based on that. (1) It was not in the U.S., but was in another country with similar laws and similar attitudes with regard to firearms, i.e. something like that could just as easily have happened in the U.S. (2) It could not have happened (or at least would have been extremely unlikely) in H.K. or in other countries where it is extremely difficult to get guns without showing good reason for needing one. (3) Something like that shouldn't happen to any child.

You "answered" by telling of an occasion when threats were made against your wife, and because you feared that the police would not be able to provide adequate protection, you procured a gun for yourself. I sympathise with your and your wife's fear. However -- unless there is part of the story that you haven't told us -- you haven't actually PROVED that this action on your part was NECESSARY. Unless those who made the threats either actually made the attempt (did they?) and were prevented in carrying out their threats by the firearm (were they?), or you can prove that they were deterred from doing so by the knowledge that you had a firearm handy (can you?), you haven't proved anything. It remains in the realm of speculation, and I am free to speculate that a clove of garlic or a magic charm would have served as an equally effective deterrent.

I could have pointed all that out in a slow, wordy, pedantic fashion as I'm doing now, but I thought you might get the point quicker if I just poked fun at it. Perhaps ridicule was not the best tactic in view of the degree of terror and trauma that you and your wife seem to have suffered, but that was not quite so apparent in your earlier posting, and I had, myself, been the "butt" of a great deal of quite unjustified ridicule earlier in this thread. I haven't bothered to "dignify" most of it with direct answers, but perhaps my resorting to ridicule myself was a kind of "answer."

So, I still stand by the POINT I was trying to make by what I said, but I do apologise if the WAY I expressed it caused additional pain. I think even the WAY I did it could be considered "fair" when compared to the tactics of others in this thread, including yourself, but I did not intend to add to your pain and regret if it did.

I would now appreciate an apology from you for the aspersions you cast on my love and concern for my family. Those remarks were completely unjustified by anything I have said or done.

Danny, my EXACT words were NOT "long dead white guys", but "long dead white males" -- not that it makes a huge difference in the "dictionary" meaning, but it does have a different connotation. The one is quite precise, while the other is slangy and, in connotation, less precise.

I know I said that and suspected that was what you were referring to, but no "race baiting" was intended.

You have accused me a number of times of being a "liberal" -- though completely without any justification in what I have said except that I disagree with you on one issue in which you associate (stereotyping!) the side with which you disagree with "liberals". Isn't it a "liberal" tendency to want to obliterate or blur legitimate distinctions between different groups, e.g. male and female?

(B.T.W., for the record, I have always voted Republican -- except in 1980 when my wife and I wrote in Ford [another Republican, but not the chosen candidate] because we lacked confidence in Reagan. And, as I said before, this is almost the only issue with which I disagree with the Republican "platform". Since I know we aren't the only ones who voted for G.W. Bush who feel this way, you can hardly say that gun control was the issue that got him elected. In fact, even if it did gain him some votes, it might have cost him others.)

Back to the main subject: in almost every place I have lived during my whole life, I have lived among people of more than one culture. Not only do I have a mountain of personal experience in dealing with differing cultures, but I have studied the "Cultural Anthropology" and "Cross-Cultural Communication" fairly extensively. Part of my present work is to act as a kind of cultural "broker" or "go-between", helping to interpret to each other the different cultures amongst which I work. So I am extremely aware of how differing backgrounds and cultures may produce different attitudes toward many issues.

My purpose in using that phrase, "long dead white males" was not to "race bait" -- as you would have seen clearly if you had read it for MEANING, rather than looking for phrases you could pull out of context to attack (as you have other phrases in other messages). Rather it was to point out that all the people you quoted came from a very narrow segment of society and that therefore their perceptions might not be shared by others, esp. in the increasingly varied multitude that now makes up the U.S. of A.

I did choose a phrase which is the same or similar to one that has become a common "catch phrase" these days. But every part of it had a definite and intended meaning.

"Long Dead" -- They wrote these things over 200 years ago. Even if the things they said were valid then, are they equally valid today? If not, perhaps the amendment either needs re-interpreting* or amendment.

(*Note: by re-interpreting, I do not mean the Supreme Court "making law" by taking something in the Constitution to mean something it plainly never meant. But on this issue, I believe that my interpretation is well within the boundaries of what it says and the amendment therefore could be legitimately interpreted in this way rather than in the way you favour.)

"White" -- would you have preferred it if I had said something like "of mainly or wholly Anglo-Saxon stock"? They came from a particular segment of society, which would have tended to see things in one particular way. Would other segments of society, even at that time, have seen this issue in the same way? Do people of all other cultural backgrounds see this issue the same way today? Are there NO cultural factors involved in the way people see this issue?

"Males" -- Would the wives of these men have seen the issue the same way they did? When you put together the fact that women's writings from past centuries have not survived to the same extent that men's writings have, and the fact that some outstanding pacifists of the past have been women, I suspect that women have not always seen eye-to-eye with the men on this issue.

Finally, back to what for me is the really key issue -- what the 2nd amendment actually SAYS. I've asked repeatedly for a rational explanation from you or your "side" of how the FIRST part of the 2nd amendment fits with the way you interpret the second part, and I haven't yet seen it. (I mean the WHOLE of the first part, including the phrase "well regulated" -- just saying "the 'people' are the militia" doesn't do it.)

If you are justified in ignoring the first part, which gives the reason and rationale for the second, then why shouldn't I ignore the second part? That would certainly be "equal", wouldn't it?

Not that I am "ignoring" it -- I just interpret the second part in the light of the first part, and believe that if the purpose of the second part is to have a "well regulated militia", it is certainly justifiable to "regulate" what the people/militia can do with their weapons.

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2001

I fear I may regret not stopping, as I intended, with the last posting, but I've been doing some browsing, and feel I should add one comment.

Robin, thanks for the link to the article on gun control in Japan. It was interesting and does demonstrate what stringent and ENFORCED gun control can do to lower the overall crime rate. However, in answer to your question ("I'm guessing this is somewhat similar to Hong Kong?"), the answer is, BY NO MEANS! It is similar in the one respect mentioned above, and that one only. I repeat, since it is important: it demonstrates what stringent and enforced gun control can do to lower the overall crime rate and make a place safer to live in.

In other respects the two situations are not at all similar. Personal liberties in Hong Kong are patterned after the British model (which served as the model for the U.S. constitution), and remain that way even after the Chinese takeover. ("One Country, Two Systems" is the slogan and also the practice in most areas.) Both the laws and the practice with regard to search and seizure and various other issues mentioned in the article on Japan are much the same as those in the U.S.

I doubt if Japan could serve as a good model for the U.S. in this area -- but Hong Kong could.

BTW, for those of you who like to feel superior to anyone who is different, and therefore are poking fun simultaneously at the use of chopsticks for eating and at any view on firearms use that is less barbaric than your own -- I don't know this from personal experience, but my understanding is that some schools of martial arts do teach the use of chopsticks as a weapon, and a potentially lethal one at that.

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2001

Ben,

I'm a big enough person to accept your apology (even though it didn't seem like your whole heart was really in it) and I will in like manner offer the same apology to your & your family if there was offense taken from my earlier post.

Now.......with that being said.........You are still in the "wrong" on this issue. Gun control is not the answer you seek. And deep down, you know that because you last comment about the chopsticks is the EXACT same thing Danny & I said in our chopstick & Mass Murderer examples. Weapons, of ANY kind, are not the problem - PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM! Those bent on doing evil are going to do it no matter what or IF a weapon is available. Therefore, taking away the right of law- abiding citizens to own a gun, whether it be for personal protection, hunting, or sport shooting is also wrong - because it won't fix the problem.

Touting gun control to stop crime is like putting a small Band-Aid on a sucking chest wound - it won't get the job done because you are only treating a sypmtom, not the disease. If fact, you would be further irritating the problem by making people more vunerable to attack. The numbers on the website I posted speak for themselves. The Crime rate in America HAS NOT CHANGED in the last 25-30 years, even though the number of guns owned by citizens has increased by 75%. But crime in the countries you offer as good examples has INCREASED when guns were outlawed. And we're not just talking about simple crime, we're talking about Violent crime. Mathematically stated, it is apparent that the rate of violent crime in a country is Directly proportional to its citizen's ability to protect themselves. Of Course, it really doesn't take a brain surgeon, rocket scientist, or even a Preacher to figure that one out.

You keep asking about how to merge the 1st part of the Second Amendment to the last half of it - why? The way I interpret it - there are 2 seperate points being made by the founding fathers. Let's look at it, shall we:

"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."

Trying to understand 200 year old English can be like trying to understand Biblical Greek or Hebrew - sometimes understanding the grammatical structure of the written word is the final, and best, method of establishing its meaning. The rules of English grammar allow for a comma to act either as a simple pause or as a replacement for the word "and". As such, I read this Amendment thusly:

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

Read this way, the Amendment establishes both the right for the country to keep a standing, regulated Army and for the citizens to keep arms for themselves as well, for whatever reason they choose to do so.

I know you don't agree with that, so lets go back to what I posted earlier from the 2nd Amendment website:

"What about the militia? The Second Amendment secures a "right of the people," not of the militia; but in any event, as the Supreme Court held in 1939, the Framers used "militia" to refer to all adult able- bodied males under age 45. Even today, under the 1956 Militia Act, all male citizens between 18 and 45 are part of the militia. (Women are probably also included, given the Supreme Court's sex-equality precedents.) "Well-regulated militia" in late 1700s parlance meant the same thing -- "the body of the People capable of bearing Arms," which is how an early proposal for the amendment defined it. And the individual-rights view is the nearly unanimous judgment of all the leading 1700s and 1800s commentators and cases."

I'm a reasonably modern sort of fellow, as I would also expand the Founder's definition of militia to include able-bodied women & older children, as long as they could properly handle the weapon. But whether you choose to accept my interpretation of the Amendment or the Supreme Courts's 1939 interpretation of the Amendment, the results are the same - Danny, myself, and everyone (excluding felons) in this country has the right to own a weapon. And further laws, both man- made and God-spoken give us the right to defend our lives when threatened. To take this right away from us would make many of the Founding Fathers and a fellow by the name of Crispus Attucks roll over in their graves. You remember Crispus, don't you? He's a "Long Dead Black Man" the first person to die in the Revolutionary conflict at the Boston Massacre - where the BRITISH shot them in cold blood.

Which leads me back to my family. You keep wanting to know what has happened, well here is the scoop. After reporting the harrassing phonecall to the authorities, the criminals'parole was denied at that time. But guess what.....they are up for parole again at the end of this year and unless they do something stupid like calling us again, they will be released according to the local Sheriff's Office. (And yes, they again asked me if I owned a weapon for protection and were quite relieved to find out that my answer was yes - also they were quite impressed with Danny's taxidermy work on the boar that hangs from the wall). Oh, one thing I failed to mention before about this group is that they are classified as habitual violent offenders. According to State Law they are supposed to be locked away for Life at this point, but because of prison overcrowding - they will be home for Christmas - probably MY home if THEY have a say-so in it. Fortunately for me, the 2nd Amendment and the Bible tells me that I have a say-so as well. If they show up uninvited - the only thing that they will be stuffing their bellies with, will be LEAD.

As my NRA President Charlton Heston has said while raising a musket overhead, ....."Out of my Cold Dead Fingers". THAT is the sound of national freedom.

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2001

At least Mark and Danny are consistent in their extremist right wing hateful views. The darkness of their souls is frightening.

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2001

Chris,

Is it "LOVE" to let my wife and children be attacked? If you really think so, you need professional help.

And thanks for putting me in a group with Danny - That definitely makes my "stock" go up!

By the way - how do YOU intepret the 2nd Amendment? If you can't supply a logical view as Danny & I have (no matter what your opinion is) - then you really have nothing to say.

And thanks for your support.

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2001

This might surprise you, but I believe the 2nd amendment means that citizens have the right bear to keep guns in their homes and that the government can't interfere with that right. As I'm not a constitutional scholar, I don't know anything about the government's right to require gun registration or taxing firearms. PS. I've got a shotgun and 2 rifles in my home.

What concerns me is the extremist and needlessly inflammatory language you and Danny use to present your cases. If you desire is to change people's minds or engage in meaningful dialogue, you'd have more success if you attempt to be rational and even handed in your presentation. If this is just a game to you and your rants are an end to themselves, then continue ranting.

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2001

Chris

I'm glad to hear that you have choosen to execute your right as an American to own your own weapons - in my books, that puts you in good company.

Now, I have to say that I think you have misread Danny's & my "rantings". Let's go back to the beginning. This thread was started merely to show what the Founding Fathers said about the second Amendment - since that question came up in another thread. Ample evidence & quotes were provide by Danny, by myself in a weblink, and even by Robin in another weblink that showed that the right to own weapons was clearly meant by the writers and designers of the Constitution. But as more evidence was supplied, more evidence was ignored by some in favor of personal opinion. Logic dictates that personal opinion does not and cannot override fact, yet the objections remained.

Chris, I'm sure that at some point in your life you have had to deal with someone that frustrated you. That is but a hint of what Danny & I have felt here. My family was insulted in this feeling over fact non-argument and Danny & I both feel that the lives of 200+ years of fallen American Patriots were belittled as they gave their lives to maintain the facts of this Amendment for us.

And even worse, I'm not sure you have grasped the bigger issue here. Sure, it hurts that someone wants to take away a very pleasant part of our lives - but what really hurts is to see a Christian deny a proven fact. You see, our Faith, our entire way & philosphy of life is based on the proven fact of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, if one can ignore 1 fact, of any type, based on their feelings, what is to keep them from ignoring other facts as well? This is a "slippery- slope" process that can end up in apostasy - a falling away from the faith. I have seen this happen on more than 1 occassion and it is not a pretty sight. It is my hope and my vow to NEVER AGAIN witness such a falling away - at least not without a fight to stop it.

Danny & I are warriors, Christian Soldiers, who are not about to give in to false ideas or doctrines. Our words may be harsh at times, but they are not spoken out of hate or out of a lack of love. We are merely doing what we think is necessary to drive Satan and his worldly ideas and lies back into the pit of slime that they crawled out of.

We do not wish to hurt people, but I have no qualms with hurting feelings. That is what the Word of God does - it breaks us down, makes us see who we really are so that repentance can happen. I've gone through that process and I praise God for the people who have confronted me in my life (one of which was Danny).

For helping others do the same with their lives, I will not apologize. And if I fail to point out truth to others - no matter what the cost - I hope (and know) that God will hold me accountable. And that is why I will use every single bit of ammunition in my ammo can, "for it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the Living God".

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2001

You Go Mark! Go Party, Dude.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2001

I had the feeling I might regret coming back into this thread, and I think that is coming true. However, having started again, I think I need to respond to a couple of things before departing again.

I guess I can no longer say that no one on the "other side" has even attempted to relate the second half of the second amendment to the first half. Mark now has, and I guess, to be fair, Danny did make an "attempt" -- but pretty feeble attempts they both were.

I have already responded to Danny's "explanation" more than once. ("The people are the militia" -- but it says "well regulated", so why not regulate them?) So what about Mark's?

It is true that a comma may SOMETIMES stand in place of the word "and", but to say that they are ALWAYS interchangeable makes a mockery of the English language. Just try it. Go through any piece of writing and replace every comma with the word "and" and see what merry nonsense you come up with!

I hadn't realised until now why you two seemed to have such a hard time grasping the point I was trying to make. I see now that it is because you don't understand well enough what the words mean and how they fit together!

"(Point A), being necessary for (Point B), (Point C) shall .... (be done or take place)" is just a somewhat old-fashioned way of saying that (Point C) is considered to be necessary BECAUSE (Point A) is considered necessary for (Point B). In the second amendment, the reason why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is BECAUSE the writer(s) considered that "a well regulated militia" was necessary for "the security of a free State."

Logically, stating the reasons for allowing something also implies limits to the scope of what is allowed. The people have a right to keep and bear "Arms" to the extent that this is needed to maintain a "well regulated militia" -- and the fact that the words "well regulated" are included IN THE AMENDMENT is also significant. Anyone choosing to "join" this "people's militia" by "keeping and bearing arms" voluntarily takes on him/herself whatever regulations are deemed necessary to ensure that the "militia" is a "well regulated" one.

A lot has been said about hunting (especially by Danny) and about personal self-defence (especially by Mark), but these are peripheral matters -- "fringe benefits" to you, IF your interpretation is upheld. They are not mentioned in the amendment itself.

By the way, as for my ability to "understand 200 year old English", I grew up reading every day from the King James version of the Bible (nearly 400 years old), have studied and read well over a half dozen of Shakespeare's plays (roughly the same period as the KJV, some slightly older), have studied parts of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in the original dialect (over 600 year old English), and have studied a reasonable amount of the other great English literature between Shakespeare and the present. English grammar and English literature were always among my best subjects in school. So a legal document from just over 200 years ago presents no great problem to me.

Mark, in your last posting (assuming another doesn't cross mine in "cyberspace"), you said, "This thread was started merely to show what the Founding Fathers said about the second Amendment." That may have been Danny's intention, but that's NOT the "title" or "subject" he chose for this thread. The subject he chose was, "What The Second Amendment REALLY Means". I haven't really bothered to argue with him about "what the Founding Fathers said", because, as I said earlier, he probably has access to a lot more sources for finding quotations like that than I have -- especially quotations that support his side, since the gun lobby likes to make such compilations.

I have taken my stand and continue to take my stand on two points.

Regarding "What The Second Amendment REALLY Means" (the stated subject of the thread), I take my stand on THE ACTUAL WORDING of the amendment and what can LOGICALLY be drawn out of it. (Danny keeps saying, "It doesn't matter what you or I think; what matters is ...." To paraphrase that, it doesn't matter what certain of the "Founding Fathers" stated as their personal opinions about guns; what matters is what they actually wrote in the amendment itself.)

Regarding the larger topic of gun control, which is what this grew out of, I take my stand on the fact that those countries with EFFECTIVE gun controls are generally safer places to live than those that either do not have or do not enforce realistic gun controls.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2001

EXERCISES IN LOGIC, PART 1

PROPOSITION ONE: All those who voted for George W. Bush are against gun control.

PROPOSITION TWO: Benjamin Rees voted for George W. Bush.

CONCLUSION: Benjamin Rees is against gun control.

OOPS! Something's wrong here. The conclusion obviously isn't right, so something must be wrong with the logic. Can you figure out what?

Let's try another one.

PROPOSITION ONE: Many American patriots of the Revolutionary War era were against gun control (as shown by selected quotations).

PROPOSITION TWO: Crispus Attuck, an American patriot of the Revolutionary War era was black. (Or was he an "American Indian"? My encyclopaedia says that little is known about him and that he might have been either.)

CONCLUSION: Black men of the Revolutionary War era were as much against gun control as those "Founding Fathers" that Danny has quoted.

Masterful logic! Right? You be the judge!

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2001

EXERCISES IN LOGIC, PART 2

PROPOSITION ONE: Women in the U.S. are currently able to get abortions through a variety of means, including legal clinics, illegal "back-alley" abortionists, "morning after" pills, going to other countries with different laws, etc., etc.

PROPOSITION TWO: If the legal clinics and the "morning after" pills are outlawed, women will continue to get abortions; they will just get them in riskier ways by going to back-alley abortionists, using coat hangers, travelling to other countries, etc.

CONCLUSION: It is better for the health and well-being of women in general and the nation as a whole to continue to allow legal clinics, etc.

Don't you agree? What? You don't!?! I feared you might not. So what about this one?

PROPOSITION ONE: People can and will kill each other by many different methods -- not only by using guns, but by a whole host of other methods -- including the lethal use of chopsticks!

PROPOSITION TWO: If gun ownership and use is restricted in any way, people will still kill each other by using these other methods.

CONCLUSION: It makes the country a safer place to live if gun ownership and use is not regulated except to "pay lip service" to not allowing convicted felons to own guns.

As the slang expression goes, Get real!!

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2001

Ben

Just a few comments...as digger any deeper is futile in this instance.

1. Concerning the word "and" I DID NOT say "that they are ALWAYS interchangeable".

I said, "The rules of English grammar ALLOW for a comma to act either as a simple pause or as a replacement for the word "and"."

2. I also do not agree with your applied logic of, "(Point A), being necessary for (Point B), (Point C) shall .... (be done or take place)" is just a somewhat old-fashioned way of saying that (Point C) is considered to be necessary BECAUSE (Point A) is considered necessary for (Point B). In the second amendment, the reason why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is BECAUSE the writer(s) considered that "a well regulated militia" was necessary for "the security of a free State."

Based upon the quotes from the founding fathers, which MUST be considered as the context within which the Amendment was written, (and Ben you know that even Scripture cannot be interpretted without deference being given to its context), you have applied the wrong logical equation to the sentence. The easiest & simplest reading of the Amendment implies the use of "and" rather than the "because of" you suggest. Remember the principle of Occam's Razor from Hermeneutics Class? The simplest & most obvious answer is probably the best answer.

3. Again, based upon the quotes of the Founding fathers and framers of the Constitution, self-preservation is not a "fringe benefit" of the Amendment - It is the REASON for the Amendment. If they said what we've read in their words, and thought the same in their minds - it would be folly to expect them to write down and ratify something that says just the opposite - at least not without also writing down their arguments of disagreement with what had been ratified.

4. I too know just a little bit about the English language myself, having also gone the route of Shakespeare and The Canterbury Tails in the original "Middle English" (wan that Aprili when the sures shootes, the drouht of march hath pierced to the roote) {pardon the spelling of my Middle English as it's been a while}.

5. You said, "I haven't really bothered to argue with him about "what the Founding Fathers said", because, as I said earlier, he probably has access to a lot more sources for finding quotations like that than I have -- especially quotations that support his side"

That's the whole point Ben - CONTEXT. To deny what the Founders' said is to deny what the Founders' meant & wrote. What you have done is deny the evidence in order to proof text the Amendment to support your personal views toward guns. By the way, the reason Danny gave no opposing quotes about the right to own arms is because - THERE AREN'T ANY!

As vocal and militant as the anti-gun lobby is in America right now, if there existed any quotes that they could use in their defense, they would be posted on every sign board, street corner, taxicab and public transportation vehicle in the country. But that is not the case - the only argument they offer (the same as you offer) is feelings - "Guns hurt people"......well, so do knifes, sticks (chopsticks), rocks, spitballs, bad Chinese food, and words. Do we ban them all or do we learn to control our lusts and live by the law of the Land and the Law of God?

Come to think of it - is not what you propose to do the EXACT same thing the Pharisees did in Jesus day? In order to keep the people from harming themselves (breaking the law of Moses), they built hedges around the actual law and added more stipulations to the Law. Isn't it interesting that because of such actions John the Baptist called them a "Brood of Vipers" and Jesus called them both "hypocrites" and children of Satan (you are of your father, the Devil). How's THAT for logic.

6. Speaking of logic, lets look at your equations again:

"PROPOSITION ONE: All those who voted for George W. Bush are against gun control.

PROPOSITION TWO: Benjamin Rees voted for George W. Bush.

CONCLUSION: Benjamin Rees is against gun control."

Here's your problem, Prop. 1 is faulty - you have not proven all who voted for Bush oppose gun control. (We HAVE proven that the founding fathers wanted the citizens to own arm, via their own quoted words).

"Let's try another one.

PROPOSITION ONE: Many American patriots of the Revolutionary War era were against gun control (as shown by selected quotations).

PROPOSITION TWO: Crispus Attuck, an American patriot of the Revolutionary War era was black. (Or was he an "American Indian"? My encyclopaedia says that little is known about him and that he might have been either.)

CONCLUSION: Black men of the Revolutionary War era were as much against gun control as those "Founding Fathers" that Danny has quoted."

You are probably right on the button with this one. Obviously Crispus felt strong enough about SOMETHING in order to give his life for it. Plus you have no evidence that can disprove it.

How about putting it this way:

PROP 1. The Patriots wanted the right to defend themselves from oppression.

PROP 2. Because of British Oppression, Crispus didn't own a gun.

Conclusion: Crispus was murdered at the hands of an English Slimeball because he had no arms to defend himself with.

Now, you proposed:

PROPOSITION ONE: Women in the U.S. are currently able to get abortions through a variety of means, including legal clinics, illegal "back-alley" abortionists, "morning after" pills, going to other countries with different laws, etc., etc.

PROPOSITION TWO: If the legal clinics and the "morning after" pills are outlawed, women will continue to get abortions; they will just get them in riskier ways by going to back-alley abortionists, using coat hangers, travelling to other countries, etc.

CONCLUSION: It is better for the health and well-being of women in general and the nation as a whole to continue to allow legal clinics, etc."

This is an incomplete equation (how did you do in Algebra by the way?) You forgot to add in Proposition 3 - "God's Law says that intentional & unwarranted killing of babies is a capital offense and a sin punishable by eternal damnation in Hell"

Now add all 3 propositions together and see what you have: "By keeping abortion legal, woman may be healthier in life but will spend eternity in Hell if they do not repent." That is the complete equation - NEVER factor God out of life's equations. You'll notice please the mulitple references Danny & I made to God's law allowing a person to defend himself from harm - our equations are complete, how about yours?

Finally:

"PROPOSITION ONE: People can and will kill each other by many different methods -- not only by using guns, but by a whole host of other methods -- including the lethal use of chopsticks!

PROPOSITION TWO: If gun ownership and use is restricted in any way, people will still kill each other by using these other methods.

CONCLUSION: It makes the country a safer place to live if gun ownership and use is not regulated except to "pay lip service" to not allowing convicted felons to own guns."

Ben......you're not Bill Clinton in disguise are you? Because your conclusion is his way of life. Drop the "lip service" and you're absolutely correct. The country IS a safer place as long as law abiding citizens can own the arms they need to protect themselves. Clinton, etc. offer lip service concerning felons - Danny & I do not. Repeatedly we have said that the current laws preventing felons from even applying to buy a gun need to be enforced, period. This is just another Liberal, slippery-slope, smokescreen - i.e., if we keep making it harder and harder for people get guns (whether or not we enforce the laws), eventually they'll just give up and let us take them all away without a fight. Notice also that Clinton is currently fighting to give felons the right to vote, even though the Law of the land denys them that right because of their actions - the slope, she is a sliding!

Ain't gonna happen bubba, not as long as I, and other Law-Conscience Americans, live and breathe. THAT is Reality.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2001

Ben

Another testimony here:

My father has been a merchant seaman since the age of 16 (volunteering to serve right after Pearl Harbor) and is now about to hit 80. He has been around the world 5 or 6 times and to every major seafaring country in the world (Russia, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Cuba, Egypt, Israel, South Africa, England, France, Holland, Greece, Italy, etc., etc. etc. His quoted words are "there is no safer place in the world than America". If he don't know this for a fact, then no one does. And if you look at the prevailing per capita violent crime rate trends of the last 30 years - he is proven correct.

Truth is in evidence my friend, and the truth shall make you free.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2001

P.S.

I would have thought that Danny, of all people, should be capable of at least understanding the point I have been trying to make about the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

It has not been so very long since he was arguing, in another thread, that he was only obligated to obey human governments up to the point of what he believed was the stated purpose, in Romans 13, for having such governments -- and no further!

If he can interpret God's word that way, why should I not opt for a similar interpretation of a human document? I believe that the second part of the 2nd amendment only applies up to the point of the purpose stated in the first part (to have a "well regulated militia") -- and no further.

Or have you changed your views on Romans 13, Danny?

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2001

Mark,

I'm glad you could point out the flaws in the opening examples in my "Exercises in Logic", though it wasn't really necessary. They were deliberately presented as examples of bad logic and I said that's what they were. I repeat: BOTH the example of Bush voters being against gun control and the "pro-abortion" argument were INTENDED as examples of BAD logic. It's just too bad that you couldn't see the obvious parallels in the other arguments which were really only condensed versions of some of the arguments you and/or Danny have been using against me.

With regard to your father -- how many years did he actually LIVE in any of the countries he visited outside of the U.S.? It is natural to find unfamiliar ways of life intimidating and "dangerous", and to think that one's own country, culture, home, etc., however flawed, is more comfortable and "safer" than the alternatives.

I'm not sure whether or not I have VISITED as many different countries as your father has, but I have actually LIVED for extended periods in countries that were on BOTH sides of this issue. I have lived longest in H.K., but have also lived, for several years at a time, in the U.S. of A., and another country with a similar attitude to that of the U.S. My personal verdict -- living in H.K. is much safer than living in any large metropolitan area in either of these other two countries. Indeed, living in H.K. is safer than living in a city of almost any size in these other two countries.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2001

Ben,

My father never actually lived in any of those foreign countries, But he did try to take as much advantage as he could of the opportunities to explore them. I would say, that if you figured up his travelling time up until about 1977, about 4/5's of his life had been spent on the go. I also have to say that not much intimidates my "old man" as he was sunk several times in WWII and torpedoed, but not sunk, several more (and he was still a teenager at that time). You can be pretty sure that, after going through such trauma, if he felt unsafe in an area - it was not a wholesome place to be.

I will absolutely agree with you about living in the major cities anywhere in the world - I wouldn't do it to "save my soul" (though I might consider it to help save the souls of others). Give me the open country-side any day of the week.

I still will have to disagree about the parallels in logic you mention (big surprise there, eh?). The A + B = C equation is rarely the right one to use when variables exist. Before a formula can be correctly chosen all possible variants have to be considered 1st - forcing the wrong equation on a problem is faulty logic in and of itself.

But as you said in the "tongues" thread, this debate has become pointless. The evidences have been presented and explained and anyone interested has more than enough data to come to a decision. For the sake of America - I just hope they make the right decision.

-- Anonymous, January 18, 2001

Interesting! Mark agrees that this "debate" has become pointless -- but he can't resist "firing off a few parting shots." Isn't it a good thing that this disagreement was purely a verbal one and none of us could use live ammo?

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2001

True Ben,

It is a good thing (for you) that we don't use live ammo, because, as the animals on my wall will attest too, I DON'T Miss! And only once was one so much as able to even stand back up after being hit.

I believe in making a clean kill - and in light of the facts and quotes presented on this thread - your argument died on the spot.

And check out the link on the Hog Hunt Thread - my boys are just as good of a shot - both with guns AND with the Sword of the Spirit (Bible).

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2001

I don't think my arguments "died on the spot." I think they are all still valid. I just got tired of going round and round repeating myself over and over again to people who seemed incapable of understanding plain English and logic.

And thanks for helping to make my case -- as to why one reason it is both dangerous and wrong to allow deadly weapons to be too readily accessible. When only verbal weapons are available, arguments tend to remain verbal; when deadly weapons that are easy to use (as guns are) are right at hand, it is too easy for someone to "lose his/her cool" and start firing real bullets -- as happens thousands of times daily all over the U.S., but can't happen where the weapons are not available.

And as I said to Danny, I repeat to you -- quit clouding the issue by bringing in hunting. Allowing reasonable access to guns for hunting purposes does not necessarily mean keeping them constantly in your house so you can use them for other purposes as well.

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2001

Where in this does he say that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was that there should be no kind of regulation of which people were qualified to own or use guns, where they could keep them, what kinds of weapons it was reasonable to use where, or to keep where?

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2001

I repeat, where does he (or most of the people you have quoted) say, "this is the purpose of the second amendment"? There are perhaps two, maybe three, of the many quotations you have given, that come CLOSE to saying "this is what I believe the amendment means".

Most don't come even close. They simply offer their personal opinion about the benefits (?) of allowing people to be armed. That DOES NOT NECESSARILY mean that that is what the amendment itself means. For all I know -- since you haven't yet given the context for any of these quotations -- they might, like you, be telling how THEY PERSONALLY felt it should be interpreted in practice, OR EVEN what they thought it should have said INSTEAD OF what it did say.

The title of the thread is "What The Second Amendment REALLY Means". In defence of YOUR particular interpretation, you have quoted a number of early patriots (only two or three of which actually had anything to do with writing the Constitution or Bill of Rights) who have given opinions which, at least when taken out of context, appear to be similar to yours. But NOT ONE of them says, "this is what the second amendment means."

There are two or three who do come close, saying something like "this is a benefit which we enjoy as Americans" (with the implication that it is because of the second amendment). Most of the others are simply giving their personal opinions on the benefits of having an armed citizenry -- which is NOT the same thing as saying, "I was in on the discussions and I KNOW this is what the second amendment MEANS."

"Q. E." is most definitely NOT "D".

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2001

Ben,

You have constantly held up Hong Kong & England as examples of how disarming the populace reduces crime. There does not appear to be any compiled statistics for Hong Kong since being turned over to the Mainland as of yet (such usually takes about 2 years to be published) and I wouldn't want to be accussed of being unfair by using the previous regimes statistics. But I have included some statistics from England & Wales in comparison to the US as of 1996. This is not compiled by the NRA or any other group you would considered biased, but by the US Dept of Justice.

Read it & weep:

Crime in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96: Press release

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

ADVANCE FOR RELEASE AT 4:30 P.M.EDT BJS SUNDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1998 202/307-0784

NEW REPORT COMPARES CRIME RATES IN THE UNITED STATES WITH RATES IN ENGLAND AND WALES

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Robbery, assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft rates are lower in the United States than they are in England and Wales, national crime victim surveys conducted in these countries reveal. However, police statistics show murder and rape rates higher in the United States than in England and Wales, according to a new report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the United States Department of Justice.

In 1995, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the English and Welsh crime survey rates exceeded those in the United States by 1.4 times for robbery, 2.3 times for assault, 1.7 times for burglary and 2.2 times for motor vehicle theft.

In crime victim surveys, the general public is asked to describe any recent crime victimization experiences. The surveys ask about all crimes, whether or not reported to police.

Comparing the crime victim survey rates from 1981 through 1995, robbery rose 81 percent in England and Wales but fell 28 percent in the United States, assault increased 53 percent in England and Wales but declined 27 percent in the United States, burglary doubled in England and Wales but fell by half in the United States and motor vehicle theft rose 51 percent in England and Wales but stayed virtually unchanged in the United States.

The latest police statistics (1996) show that the rates of murder, rape and robbery reported to law enforcement agencies were all higher in the United States than in England and Wales, whereas law enforcement data showed that assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft rates were all higher in England and Wales than in America. During 1996, English and Welsh police recorded twice as many burglaries and motor vehicle thefts on a per capita basis as recorded by law enforcement agencies in the United States.

Police statistics for 1996 showed that compared to England and Wales the murder rate here was 5.7 times higher and the rape rate was about 3 times higher. These differences had narrowed after 1981, when the murder rate here was 8.7 times higher and the rape rate 17 times higher.

The report pointed out numerous other differences. For example, prison sentences are longer in the United States than in England and Wales--3 years longer for murder, 4 years for rape, 4 years for robbery, almost 3 years for assault, more than 2 years for burglary and more than one year longer for motor vehicle theft.

An offender's risk of being caught and convicted has been rising in the United States since 1981 but falling in England and Wales. Except for murder, a person who commits a crime in the United States now is more likely to be caught and convicted than in England and Wales.

Although the United States has substantially higher incarceration rates than England and Wales, the black incarceration rate is about six times higher than the white incarceration rate in both countries. In 1991 (the latest year for which comparable data were published for both countries) there were in the United States 396 adult whites in a local jail or a state or federal prison per 100,000 white adult residents, 2,563 adult blacks and 643 adults of other races per 100,000 adults in each group. In England and Wales during the same year there were 102 incarcerated adult whites per 100,000 population, compared to 667 incarcerated adult blacks and 233 incarcerated adults of other races.

Since 1973 BJS has been surveying a representative sample of the United States population to learn about criminal victimizations. England initiated a national survey in 1981. Although there are some differences, the types of crime measured by the two surveys are quite comparable.

Many other nations, including France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Israel and New Zealand, are now also using national crime victim surveys to supplement police crime reports, and the United Nations also now sponsors an International Crime Victimization Survey.

The report, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96" (NCJ 169284), was written by BJS statistician Patrick A. Langan and BJS visiting fellow David P. Farrington, of the University of Cambridge, England. Single copies may be obtained by calling the BJS Clearinghouse at 1-800-732-3277.

-------------------------------------

There's some interesting data there. And even while the comparison showed a disparity in Rape & Murder, notice that the difference had decreased since 1981 - the very same period when gun ownership grew exponentially in the US and was banned in the UK.

The facts & Founding Fathers are still speaking loudly here, while the corpse of your argument (or lack there-of) is still lying cold on the ground.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Danny said,

"I mean....think of how ridculous [sic] it sounds. You are suggesting they had different person [sic] opinions about the Second Amendment but that differed from their views when they wrote the Second Amendment?? It has become obvious in light of your inability to provide historical documentation....that you are now grasping at straws."

I'm getting tired of this!!! So I hope fellow forum participants (if there are any still following this thread other than Danny and Mark) will forgive me if I sound a little irritable. Danny, are you (a) just joking, trying to "get a rise" out of me? or (b) too blinded by your attachment to your arsenal to think clearly about what you are saying? or (c) just inherently incapable of clear reasoning?

Far from "grasping at straws" in any kind of "last resort" because I have been so thoroughly defeated by your oh-so-overwhelming evidence (not!), what I said in my last posting is part of what I have been saying all along. You just haven't seemed to get the point, so keep piling on more of the same, even though it doesn't prove any more now than it did when I told you much the same thing weeks ago.

One (of several) reasons why I HAVE NOT BOTHERED to search for quotations from the "founding fathers" on "the other side", to counter your arguments, is that even if I came up with 20 times as many quotations on "my side", they would probably be of a similar nature to the ones you offer, i.e. personal opinions about matters connected to possible applications of the 2nd amendment, but NOT saying directly, "this is what the amendment means." Therefore they would not "PROVE" my case any more than your quotations prove yours. So what's the point of wasting time looking?!? Just because one side argues with irrelevancies, doesn't mean the other side is losing if they refuse to respond in kind!

I prefer, as I've said before, to take my stand regarding the MEANING of the amendment on two points: (a) what does the amendment actually SAY, and (b) what can be reasonably deduced about the INTENTION of the amendment from the way it is worded, esp. including the portion that "your side" normally ignores -- the first clause, which states the reason for having the amendment at all.

*IF* the Supreme Court should ever rule that I am wrong in my interpretation and you are right in your interpretation, then my position is that, interpreted that way, it is a bad and dangerous law and should be amended to clearly restrict it to what I (and many others) think it meant in the first place.

By the way, in response to Mark's contention that the real meaning of the amendment is something like "A well regulated militia AND the right to bear arms shall not be infringed", I don't think you'd find any English teacher who would support that explanation of the words. But, since he seems to believe it .... I ran across a web page (ironically, one supporting "your side") in which the question was put to a college professor of English. The professor said that the first clause states the grounds or reason for the second clause. He suggested, as a modern equivalent, something like this: "SINCE it is necessary to have a well regulated militia, the right to bear arms shall not be abridged." (And the person who put the question seemed to assume the same meaning for the first clause -- he/she was trying to make a different point.)

Back to Danny's latest salvo -- there is nothing particularly unusual about a politician holding private views that are at odds with what he has to agree to in respect to legislation or upholding of various laws. Isn't that what John Ashcraft has just agreed to do? Without the context of the quotations, how do we KNOW that some of these men's opinions on firearms were not parallel to Ashcraft's views on abortion, i.e. this is the way they privately felt, but since that wasn't what the law actually said, they would still uphold the law as written. And don't say, "well they wrote it, so of course the amendment reflects their views." They were NOT the ONLY ones involved in writing it.

I don't KNOW that that IS the case -- and really don't feel inclined to bother looking for proof of this particular fact, because that is not what my case rests on. Since it IS the main substance of your case, I think it is enough for me to point out that you still haven't offered ANY PROOF (despite me making this same point repeatedly for weeks), that this isn't the case (i.e. that the men are not just giving private opinions that MAY differ from a legal interpretation of the amendment). If that is your PROOF, then PROVE it CONCLUSIVELY, not merely "suggestively."

As I've pointed out repeatedly, NONE of these quotations say, "this is what the amendment means" -- they simply offer opinions on related matters. Secondly, many of them would not necessarily be incompatible to putting some kind of restriction on the INDIVIDUAL'S use of firearms.

By the way, I have been doing some historical and legal research (as much as I have felt I've had time for). I'm just not finding much that seems relevant -- on either side. I have found a few interesting things, though, and some MIGHT be relevant. I'm still thinking about it. For example, did you know that the way the 2nd amendment is now worded was NOT Madison's first proposal? What he first proposed may shed some light on what his intention for the amendment was.

Mark,

Thanks for the quoted article which helps to SUPPORT my case. I have never said that restricting the use of firearms will stop all crime. The case I have been trying to make is that it will reduce the levels of certain kinds of crime by making them more difficult. You don't need firearms to commit burglary or car theft. As you have pointed out, firearms are not actually required to commit homicide, but they certainly make it easier, and some kinds of homicides that are common in some parts of the U.S. could not take place without them, e.g. "drive-by" shootings in some urban areas.

I think it is VERY significant that the MURDER rate is lower in England and Wales than in the U.S., DESPITE the fact that prison sentences for murder are more severe in the U.S.

As for your claim that the narrowing of the difference in the number of murders and rapes in the two countries is because during this time period guns were banned in Britain and proliferated in the U.S. -- that is laughably simplistic and ignores all kinds of other factors that could and certainly did affect the situation in the two countries during the past 20 years.

Your argument on this is very similar to saying that the current prosperity the U.S. is enjoying is because Clinton was president for the past 8 years. (I guess that's what Clinton himself is saying, but I wonder if you agree?) And using these statistics to argue against gun control is like saying that Clinton should have another term as president. Even if he was responsible for the prosperity, would THAT be a good idea (even if it were legal)?

If you want a comparison that shows the difference even more clearly, how about comparing Detroit and Toronto?

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

I came into this debate late, so shoot if I cover ground that has already been trampled. It seems to me, a gun rights supporter, that the spirit of the 2nd Ammendment was written in a time of war, oppression and conflict. I suspect that the emotions of the "founding fathers" would not be much different than our own under such conditions. I could see myself advocating the writing in of a right for all citizens to carry arms after fighting long and hard for freedom from tyranny. Thus, I believe that the spirit of the document embodies a certain distrust of government.

It seems that Ben argues for stringent regulation of guns. I know I read that in one of his posts somewhere. I also gather, from the spirit of his posts, that he would favor "banning guns" altogether, but has taken the less hardline apporach of suggesting regulation. (banning guns in a general public sense that is) Ben seems to think that society has progressed beyond the dire circumstance that faced the founding fathers. This view is backed by facts and statistics worldwide whether you like it or not.

Danny and other gun nuts :) remain unmoved by the fear that one day government will once again impose its will above the free will of the individual. This view is also supported by facts and stats worldwide whether you like it or not.

We can point to the original intent of the founding fathers and we can counterpoint by mentioning the widespread belief smong many of them, at that same time, that certain races were inferior and should be slave to another. We can say that guns allowed for the perpetuation of Manifesty Destiny. Surely, no one can argue that the United States used its well regulated weaponry for ill. But just as surely, no one can argue that the United States used its well regulated weaponry for good in the World Wars.

Holy cow, I'm getting way off track. Anyway, I choose to stand on the side of the right of individual gun ownership, not because I actively fear the government, not because I want to prevent crime or engage in it, but should the situation arise, after all the talking and praying has failed, a guy's gotta stand up for what he believes in.

It would be a much simpler argument from a christian viewpoint if Christ had brandished a sword and stuck somebody in the guts once. (Of course he would've promptly healed them and repositioned their disembowled organs.) (We do however have Peter slicing off an ear in the Lord's defense and the whipping in the temple. :)

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001