Defending your home

effenheimer_IHB

effenheimer_IHB

New member
<em>We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is ?deeply rooted in this Nation?s history and tradition.? Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the ?true palladium of liberty.? Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. <strong> We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.</strong></em>



Go <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/20/yes-california-there-is-an-individual-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms/">9th</a>!
 
"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." <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">2nd Amendment -- US Constitution</a>



I don't understand. Does this mean we have to join a well regulated Militia in order to bear arms?



Is joining the Militia part of the gun registration form people fill out when they buy one?



Does that mean we can regulate the Militia but we cannot regulate people who want to own guns?



I am confused.
 
IR - It is the commas.



Read it like this:



?A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.?





&





"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.?





Putting it in context of the times it was written: It was necessary for people to own and be ready to use weapons in order to defend themselves. There were little to no multi-officer police forces. And it was considered necessary for the populace to be armed to defend itself against a tyrant or a centralized government.





Personally I think it is still important to be able to defend oneself. Police can not prevent crimes. Armed citizens can. And nothing equalizes the weak and bullies faster than a weak person with a gun.



And I think it is just as important now to have an armed citizenry to protect itself from a tyrannical government, especially after Bush decimated The Constitution with the patriot act.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1240315634]

And I think it is just as important now to have an armed citizenry to protect itself from a tyrannical government, especially after Bush decimated The Constitution with the patriot act.</blockquote>


If you try to "defend" yourself from an officer they will just throw you in prison.
 
IR please read up on District of Columbia v. Heller.



It essentially states that the police are NOT beholden to "protect" us as an individual, but as a socitial whole. In other words, if they are not around you HAVE TO protect yourself. That means a 90lb woman MUST protect herself against the 240 lb man. Its a little difficult when the situtation comes to YOU and not you to it.



In fact in most "Police Forces", it is written in their charter they are NOT responsible to protect you and as such they CANNOT be brought to court for not protecting you. I can see how this could lead to alot of litigation, but when you outright ban the ability to protect yourself with different forms, then what is a person to do?



As for defending yourself against a officer... well that's why they have camera's.... AND on top of that YOU CAN bring up charges against them and use that evidence, it is your RIGHT. I think you see that crap/abuse every day on the news.



Anyways good luck

-bix
 
This isn't a subject I have a strong opinion about, but sometimes it is fun taking the other side of the argument, particularly when the text of the amendment is pretty clear. The people who argue most vociferously for a strict and literal interpretation of the constitution find legalisms like misplaced commas to get around this particular statement that they do not agree with.



Since most of the arguments above seem to focus on personal protection, perhaps you can explain to me why countries like Japan or cities like Singapore that have truly draconian gun control laws also have the lowest incidence of gun violence? There is a direct correlation between strict gun laws and a lack of gun violence. The United States is one of the most dangerous countries in the world. That is not an argument for having more guns for protection, it is an argument for having fewer guns.



My wife is British, so we watch a fair amount of BBC America. It is interesting to watch British cop shows because they do not carry guns, nor are they worried about the criminals carrying guns. It makes for a strange dynamic when you compare it to US cop shows where gun violence is at the center of the action.



Don't think I am afraid of guns either. I grew up in a rural area, and I have shot many types of guns, rifles mostly. I wasn't a big-time hunter like some in my family, but I have spent many hours in the woods with guns shooting at wild animals. I will admit to having limited experience with pistols, although I had a friend who let me shoot his Walther PPK (The James Bond gun). That sucker is loud and has quite a kick, but it doesn't compare the the 12-gauge or the 30-06 my uncle has.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1240315634]IR - It is the commas.



Read it like this:



?A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.?





&





"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.?





Putting it in context of the times it was written: It was necessary for people to own and be ready to use weapons in order to defend themselves. There were little to no multi-officer police forces. And it was considered necessary for the populace to be armed to defend itself against a tyrant or a centralized government.





Personally I think it is still important to be able to defend oneself. Police can not prevent crimes. Armed citizens can. And nothing equalizes the weak and bullies faster than a weak person with a gun.



And I think it is just as important now to have an armed citizenry to protect itself from a tyrannical government, <span style="color: red;">especially after Bush decimated The Constitution with the patriot act</span>.</blockquote>


Yes, and we don't even know the half of it yet.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1240395146]This isn't a subject I have a strong opinion about, but sometimes it is fun taking the other side of the argument, particularly when the text of the amendment is pretty clear. The people who argue most vociferously for a strict and literal interpretation of the constitution find legalisms like misplaced commas to get around this particular statement that they do not agree with.



Since most of the arguments above seem to focus on personal protection, perhaps you can explain to me why countries like Japan or cities like Singapore that have truly draconian gun control laws also have the lowest incidence of gun violence? There is a direct correlation between strict gun laws and a lack of gun violence. The United States is one of the most dangerous countries in the world. That is not an argument for having more guns for protection, it is an argument for having fewer guns.



My wife is British, so we watch a fair amount of BBC America. It is interesting to watch British cop shows because they do not carry guns, nor are they worried about the criminals carrying guns. It makes for a strange dynamic when you compare it to US cop shows where gun violence is at the center of the action.



Don't think I am afraid of guns either. I grew up in a rural area, and I have shot many types of guns, rifles mostly. I wasn't a big-time hunter like some in my family, but I have spent many hours in the woods with guns shooting at wild animals. I will admit to having limited experience with pistols, although I had a friend who let me shoot his Walther PPK (The James Bond gun). That sucker is loud and has quite a kick, but it doesn't compare the the 12-gauge or the 30-06 my uncle has.</blockquote>


No one said the commas were misplaced. People read it differently because of the commas. Yes, the text is clear, and it has been interpreted to read that individuals have the right to possess firearms since it was written.







In Switzerland, almost every man possesses a semi auto or automatic rifle and a handgun and there is very little gun violence. Ditto Israel, where there is some bomb violence and bombs are illegal, but there is little to no citizen gun violence and the citizens all have guns.







Parts of the US in which concealed carry is legal have lower rates of gun violence. Washington DC, which has the strictest gun control laws, has the highest rate of gun violence.







The argument that gun control laws lessen gun violence have been shown time and time to be anecdotal and without factual merit.
 
Maybe DC has the strictest gun control laws because it had and continues to have a high crime rate? This isn't proof of which is the chicken and which is the egg.



However, lack of gun control causing a higher rate of accidental shootings has been concluded, by many studies.



Switzerland and Israel have military service requirements so Average Bjorns and Average Sharons know gun safety. Japan has strict gun laws and lower crime rate than either one, but naming one country to counter your two proves only that I can cherry pick.



You gotta compare the costs (accidental shootings, intentional shootings) vs the benefits (would crime rate rise if no US citizens were allowed to own guns). You might guess where this argument is headed.
 
Yep, most Swiss males keep an equivalent of M16 (and not the neutered version either). They are paid by the govt to shoot them at the range periodically. The country has been in the middle of two world wars last century, yet came out unscathed.



In Finland you can buy silencers without any background check. A low violence country.



It's all very complex, and generally violence is related to how healthy and homogenious the society is and the social anchors. US is neither healthy (eg. wealth dispersion), nor homogenious. Traditional anchors are family and religion. Neither is present. Hence the violence.
 
I suppose the real question is does unrestricted private gun ownership act as a deterrence to gun violence, or does it create the conditions that fosters gun violence.



I think it is clear that taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding people while leaving them in the hands of criminals doesn't work, and this is what most of our compromise legislation accomplishes.
 
I live in a semi rural area that is very gun oriented. I am currently up in the mountains of Arizona near Show-Low doing some off roading. Yesterday a was in a national forest 20 miles back in on dirt trails. In these areas everyone you meet is armed and the expectation is that if you don't see a weapon then they have one concealed. I have a CCW in 2 states which allows me to carry in approx 30 states so i feel very comfortable being armed and being around armed folks. I see everything from sidearms to AR-15s on ATVs.



At first it is a little intimidating to meet someone carrying a semi auto assult rifle with a scope and 2 30 round mags when you are miles off the beaten path. It is a different mindset from Irvine. This is no land for wusseys!



I also try to get to the range twice a month to practice. As far as "dusting off" the old magnum I feel that if you are going to own, carry, use a gun then you need to spend a lot of time practicing safty, shooting, and being familiar with the weapon.



Ipo



'All this reminds me that I haven?t cleaned the old Magnum in quite some time? '



If your gun neads cleaning maybe it should stay that way. How old is the ammo?



I am armed 80% of the time however none knows it. I never show the gun to people as in "show and tell".



The decision to carry needs to be very well thought through and one needs to invest time into being comfortable in doing so.



For Bix and others here who know what I am talking about, last week I got a new Springfield Armoury XD .40 Cal. I havent had a chance to try it out yet. I will take it to the range after I get back home but won't carry it until I have maybe 500 rounds through it to get comfortable with it. Until then I carry my Browning Hi-Power or PPK that I have had for over 20 years.



Remember that "Gun Control" is hitting what you aim at.
 
You can argue all you want about "gun control". But taking an effect deterrent away from law abiding citizens and punishing them for being honest and truthful, is not the spirit of the law. On the other hand, when most people who would use a firearm in the commision of a crime get a slap on the wrist, who is exactly you are trying to deter?



Combine that with the police charter STATING that they WILL NOT PROTECT the individual, but the socitial. In the end you are left to protect yourself. Can you protect yourself against many, against one, against and armed opponent?



As for owning a firearm, it is YOUR responsibility to keep it safe, in good working order and secured.



How about that most recent news story that a young child found a pistol and hurt herself, because her parents "forgot" it was there (it is a responsibility, just like alot of things we would take for granted....)
 
[quote author="xsocal land merchant" date=1240441973] Springfield Armoury XD .40 Cal. I havent had a chance to try it out yet. I will take it to the range after I get back home but won't carry it until I have maybe 500 rounds through it to get comfortable with it. Until then I carry my Browning Hi-Power or PPK that I have had for over 20 years.

</blockquote>


I dealt with Springfield Armory (the one established by Bob Reese, not George Washington) about 25 years ago when they first started. I worked for a company that bought and imported all of Baretta's remaining BM-59 conversion parts and we sold them to Reese who was then converting surplus Garands to .308. I was in charge of packaging the kits which included a number of items, the most critical of which was a sleeve that dropped into the .30-06 chamber and after fire forming, shortened the chamber to .308. This product had a lot of problems (sleeve wouldn't stay in the chamber) and SA stopped selling them not long afterwards. This problem didn't seem to bother the Italian army. I thought the SA people were great and responsible folks and I'm glad to see that they have done so well over the years.



I have a vintage FN Hi-Power (not Canadian Inglis copy) in a public storage vault that bears the inscription "Property of the Republic of China" (in Chinese). It sits in the same box as a 1920s vintage Colt mfg. 1911 with the inscription "Shanghai Municipal Police" (in English). These and a couple broomhandles constitute my "Warlord Special" collection.



I love the PPK but I find the TPH to fit the pocket much better.
 
[quote author="xsocal land merchant" date=1240441973]I also try to get to the range twice a month to practice. As far as "dusting off" the old magnum I feel that if you are going to own, carry, use a gun then you need to spend a lot of time practicing safty, shooting, and being familiar with the weapon.



Ipo



'All this reminds me that I haven?t cleaned the old Magnum in quite some time? '



If your gun neads cleaning maybe it should stay that way. How old is the ammo?



I am armed 80% of the time however none knows it. I never show the gun to people as in "show and tell".



The decision to carry needs to be very well thought through and one needs to invest time into being comfortable in doing so.



For Bix and others here who know what I am talking about, last week I got a new Springfield Armoury XD .40 Cal. I havent had a chance to try it out yet. I will take it to the range after I get back home but won't carry it until I have maybe 500 rounds through it to get comfortable with it. Until then I carry my Browning Hi-Power or PPK that I have had for over 20 years.



Remember that "Gun Control" is hitting what you aim at.</blockquote>


I wouldn't dream of carrying but do keep our "family" pistol (S&W 586) at home, in a locked case, and periodically change out the ammo for new. I clean it after firing and try to do so if I haven't taken it out for a while. I definitely have been lax with it of late.



I grew in Georgia and am very familiar with guns and gun safety. I was hunting with friends with my Sheridan .20 in 1st grade, owned my own 20-gauge at 7 years old, and took down a few bucks by 3rd grade via my dad's 30-06. Our next-door neighbors were into the whole civil war thing and the dad made muzzle loaders as a hobby. I was maintaining, loading and firing flintlock and percussion cap muskets at 7-8 years old. I got my first pistol around that time as well, a .22 magnum, and would keep it in a holster on my motorcycle for rides into the woods with my buddies. Been around guns so much growing up that basic gun safety is instilled/inherent, not even a thought any longer...



Someday when my boys are older, I'll get a new gun or two and start teaching them respect and care for firearms. I can still remember a day when I first started shooting pistols. Had earphones on and was shooting targets. My dad was behind me and said something so I turned around. Didn't think to point the pistol down so when I turned my .22 was pointed right at him. He smacked the gun out of my hands so hard my hand was hurting for weeks and lit into me at length for doing it. Learned my lesson right there and then...
 
[quote author="ipoplaya" date=1240532752][I was hunting with friends with my Sheridan .20 in 1st grade</blockquote>


You must have been one buff first grader if your could pump a Sheridan. Even as an adult, I have to strain to pump my Silver Streak beyond 5 pumps.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1240438813]I suppose the real question is does unrestricted private gun ownership act as a deterrence to gun violence, or does it create the conditions that fosters gun violence.



</blockquote>


Neither. It is mostly a matter of culture and individual character.

We are a violent nation; always have been.

Japanese Americans have no higher rate of gun violence or violence than Japanese do in Japan. They have a non-violent culture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top