Hal Eaton wrote:No, it's a "people with guns problem."
So is adultery a "people with genitalia" problem? Is drunk driving a "drunk people with vehicles problem"? What do you plan to ban after you get rid of the guns and people are still killing people? Do you consider police officers to be "living by the sword"? You would have them be stand-ins for unarmed civilians in possessing the ability to visit violence on perpetrators via firearm, but if they are simply armed in lieu of you and me, then are they not "living by the sword" in our place, and we have simply transferred that sword from individuals to a small minority? And if we can transfer that "right of the sword" to police officers, then it means that we as individuals inherently have a "right to the sword" for our own personal protection.
Hal Eaton wrote:A reading of the Constitution's take on the issue, as if the document is on the level of inerrancy, word-for-word Truth, and infallibility of the Bible, is an abuse of the framers' attitudes, motivations, and ethics.
Of course it's not infallible. That's why there's an amendment process. Abuse of the framers' attitudes, motivations and ethics? Hmmm. All for you, my friend:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." -- Justice Joseph Story, 1833, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..." -- Samuel Adams, "Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts"
"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, - who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." -- George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
"The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any…" -- James Madison, Federalist Paper #48
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book, 1774-1776
"If the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force. . . . For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and . . .makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature. . . . It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another." -- William Blackstone, English philosopher
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Constitution for Virginia, June 1776
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." -- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787.
There's plenty more. Before you go off rambling about "abuse of the framers' attitudes, motivations and ethics", I suggest you at least have some evidence to support that position. You have managed so far to avoid answering any questions of substance on the matter.
Constitutional arguments aside and going back to some excerpts from one of my earlier posts in this thread, if it's a "people with guns problem", how to you explain the following:
- Handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe.
- Hungary's murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria's, but Austria's gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary's.
- Murder in Europe was at an all-time low before the gun controls were introduced
- In the 19th and early 20th century England, there were no firearms restrictions in England and it had little violent crime; by the late 1990s, however, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns. By the year 2000, violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe's highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States.
- In America, on the other hand, despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s.
Furthermore, how do you justify disarming people from THE most effective means of self-defense? With all the propaganda over women's issues at the moment and since women are one of the fastest growing groups of gun owners, what do you offer in the way of personal protection against larger and stronger adversaries who seek to do them harm? A 5'2", 120lb woman can drop a 250lb, 6'4" attacker with nothing more than a projectile 1/3 to 4/10ths of an inch in diameter before the attacker ever gets within an arm's length of her.
You take issue with the Jacksonville, NC post. What about the grandmother in the previous story I posted? If you require additional stories of self-defense use of a firearm, they are plentiful enough. Probably be one on your local evening news tonight or within the next few days. There was one here locally or regionally within the last month or so about some bad guy being held at bay by a 90-something year old lady using her late husband's pistol. Let's see her do that with a cell phone or can of mace.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.