2nd ammedment paper i have to write

[zkovach]

I have to write a position paper on the second ammendment. My take is that anti gun laws raise crime rates and cause more problems. Where can i find statistics, info, and aftermath of anti gun laws. anyone have any good websites?

Thanks,
Z

[todd51]

Z, here is a power point presentation that may help you out.

http://www.survival4chicks.com/?p=5033

[ofitg]

Gary Kleck has done some good research on this issue - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck

You can find a lot of info by Googling his name.

[Marlin T]

Arm yourself with intellectual Ammunition!
Gunfacts 5.1 Myth-Busting Facts
JustFacts.com on Gun Control
Stopping Power, the Downloadable Book

Thanks Ponycar!

[millwright]

Don't forget to check John Lott's site, too !
There's also the SAF. >MW

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by Marlin T

Arm yourself with intellectual Ammunition!
Gunfacts 5.1 Myth-Busting Facts
JustFacts.com on Gun Control
Stopping Power, the Downloadable Book

Thanks Ponycar!

I've read through these sites Marlin posted, and I have to say there is a bottomless pit of information within them.

If I were writing a paper on the 2A... I would include why the Second Amendment is so important, even today. Especially with respect to the illegal immigrant/drug cartel battle going on down on the US-Mexico border.

For me, these are the reasons we have militias. When the Federal government can't protect us, the militia is supposed to defend the security of a free state.

As far as the Second Amendment... The keeping and bearing of Arms was intended to protect against a totalitarian takeover by one's own government. Something the Founders had just fought an entire war with England over. As far as defending from criminals... I think that's a reason why they put the comma between the militia clause and the rest of the Amendment. They obviously knew that the militia weren't only ones who should have Arms. The People - law-abiding, good people like you or me or anybody on this board - should retain the right to keep and bear Arms. I think they felt that self-defense was a given. But in my opinion, the right to keep and bear arms was a right not only reserved for the 'well-regulated militia,' but a right retained by the people as well. The 'people' has never meant a militia. It means citizens.

I don't think there is one, particular Amendment in the Bill of Rights that is THE most important. To me, they are all equally important. If one is taken away, they all fall like dominoes. However, the Second Amendment is what really keeps the status quo between totalitarianism and government of the people, for the people and by the people instituted for the sake of securing the rights of free men.

Let us know if you need any help. I'm sure anybody here can provide a great point on just about anything 2A related.

Good luck on your paper.

[armedandsafe]

The Federalist Papers.
The Anti-Federalist Papers.

Those are writings and opinions of the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment. I think they had a pretty good idea what it meant.

Actually, you will get that info in the links mentioned above, but the Papers are good to know, anyway.

http://www.cato.org/search_results.p...fields=summary

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp5ch01.htm

Pops


Pops

[Jim K]

IMHO, it is better to avoid the statistics and use the antis' emotional tactics against them. Talk about the poor man in Washington, DC, who tried to oppose the neighborhood drug gang. When he was interviewed by a reporter for the local left-wing paper, he showed the reporter his old shotgun. The reporter, who was working for the drug dealers, called the police, who confiscated the gun. The next night the old man was killed, beaten to death by home intruders. Gun control had triumphed again!

Talk about a single mother, terrified each night as armed gangs roam the neighborhood. She can't arm herself because her city has decided that people who live in public housing are criminals and can't be allowed to have a weapon of any kind. The criminals pay no attention to the law and the politicians take a cut of the proceeds.

Talk about the lies told by the gun control advocates. When the now-overturned DC law was proposed in 1976, the local newspaper, a fanatic advocate of gun bans, told the people that the law would reduce crime by 90%; in two years, crime had increased 300%. Needless to say, the paper demanded even stricter gun control laws, and insisted that the rest of the country should follow its lead.

Talk about the racism behind gun control. Talk about a lily-white Congress passing a law to require gun transfers "face to face." Talk about a California law requiring ammunition to be sold "face to face". No dealer can tell if someone is a criminal by looking at his or her face; the only purpose of such laws is to keep people of the "wrong" race disarmed.

Talk about the hypocrisy of gun control proponents who say no one needs protection, yet who hire armed guards to protect them. (The late Senator Edward M. Kennedy said no one needed a gun; he didn't - he had thirty armed guards on his payroll.)

Jim

[Gun Geezer]

Originally Posted by Jim K

IMHO, it is better to avoid the statistics and use the antis' emotional tactics against them. Talk about the poor man in Washington, DC, who tried to oppose the neighborhood drug gang. When he was interviewed by a reporter for the local left-wing paper, he showed the reporter his old shotgun. The reporter, who was working for the drug dealers, called the police, who confiscated the gun. The next night the old man was killed, beaten to death by home intruders. Gun control had triumphed again!

Talk about a single mother, terrified each night as armed gangs roam the neighborhood. She can't arm herself because her city has decided that people who live in public housing are criminals and can't be allowed to have a weapon of any kind. The criminals pay no attention to the law and the politicians take a cut of the proceeds.

Talk about the lies told by the gun control advocates. When the now-overturned DC law was proposed in 1976, the local newspaper, a fanatic advocate of gun bans, told the people that the law would reduce crime by 90%; in two years, crime had increased 300%. Needless to say, the paper demanded even stricter gun control laws, and insisted that the rest of the country should follow its lead.

Talk about the racism behind gun control. Talk about a lily-white Congress passing a law to require gun transfers "face to face." Talk about a California law requiring ammunition to be sold "face to face". No dealer can tell if someone is a criminal by looking at his or her face; the only purpose of such laws is to keep people of the "wrong" race disarmed.

Talk about the hypocrisy of gun control proponents who say no one needs protection, yet who hire armed guards to protect them. (The late Senator Edward M. Kennedy said no one needed a gun; he didn't - he had thirty armed guards on his payroll.)

Jim

All good stuff, but I would still include some statistics. Facts can play to emotion in a positive way.

[Marlin T]

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

The Federalist Papers.
The Anti-Federalist Papers.

Those are writings and opinions of the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment. I think they had a pretty good idea what it meant.

Actually, you will get that info in the links mentioned above, but the Papers are good to know, anyway.
Pops


Pops

Here is another place that is PACKED with historical documents, Federalist Papers too.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/

EDIT:

You might want to include this case.

"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov't) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order" (Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]). [http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm]

[Teejay9]

If guns go away, all the evil in the world would stop. They would have no means to commit crimes. It would be a pacifist paradise. (The sarcasm button is ON) TJ

[jack404]

show them the Australian experience of gun control , within 2 years crime up 300% new crimes called home invasion now daily events , only criminals have decent weapons but if theres a altercation between a criminal and a armed civilian then the civilian gets in strife and the crime has no licence to lose or money to be fined and gets let go as a poor victim of society to reoffend often within the same day

while the legal citizen is waiting for bail , for a lawyer , for justice that wont come

state how the best way to fix this is to neuter all anti gun people as a minimum , extermination would be better

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by jack404

show them the Australian experience of gun control , within 2 years crime up 300% new crimes called home invasion now daily events , only criminals have decent weapons but if theres a altercation between a criminal and a armed civilian then the civilian gets in strife and the crime has no licence to lose or money to be fined and gets let go as a poor victim of society to reoffend often within the same day

while the legal citizen is waiting for bail , for a lawyer , for justice that wont come

state how the best way to fix this is to neuter all anti gun people as a minimum , extermination would be better

Sounds like Australia needs a real-life Batman. Like a vigilante to fight the criminals if the people in power will not.

I would never advocate exterminating them. I'd rather show everybody the errors of the anti-gun people, so that more people rally to our cause and support the natural right of self defense with a deadly weapon.

[jack404]

Originally Posted by hogger129

Sounds like Australia needs a real-life Batman. Like a vigilante to fight the criminals if the people in power will not.

I would never advocate exterminating them. I'd rather show everybody the errors of the anti-gun people, so that more people rally to our cause and support the natural right of self defense with a deadly weapon.

maybe if they start making arguments that you have no right to self defence that a woman being raped is a lesser crime than defending the same lady with a gun

maybe then you'll change your mind , but i guess you'll see that yourselves soon enough ... make up your mind then eh .. when you are told because you have a gun your a criminal , but told also that criminals have guns to survive so they are ok ... hahahaha lots to learn ..

welcome to gun control

[tyc]

Originally Posted by zkovach

I have to write a position paper on the second ammendment. "
Z

For what it's worth, you shouldn't "have to ..." write such a paper, if anything, look forward to it.

Recent Supreme Court decisions and resultant actions on the part of the anti-gun elements in (of all places) Washington DC, let alone Chicago and the like should provide an abundance of good "raw meat" for such a position paper.

If I may suggest, when you've finished it, send a copy to this forum so we can all see what you've come up with.

tyc

[Rocketman1]

I think you should use Chicago as an example, in fact it is an excellent example of banning guns and doing absolutly nothing to stop crime. Its not opinion, it is fact.

you could have fun with this.

[Rocketman1]

Starte here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-ta..._b_312764.html

It's enticing to think that the Supreme Court agreeing late last month to settle once and for all the legality of Chicago's handgun ban will have some major effect on crime in Chicago, but in all likelihood it won't.
The court's decision to finally weigh in comes at a time when neither gun rights advocates nor gun control proponents are satisfied with the current state of things.

Opponents point to the city's second-highest-in-the-nation murder rate and say the ban isn't working.

Proponents of the ban say it doesn't work perfectly because it isn't big enough -- not tough enough on dealers or with too many holes in the tracking process.

[armedandsafe]

We seem to be leading him to reasons for not banning. Actually, discussing the 2nd Amendment needs to be done on the original meaning and reasons. Once those are established and documented, one can discuss how it applies today. Once a solid premise for the 2nd is established, then one can go into the effects on society by infringing it, with examples taken from where that was applied.

Pops

[willywonka]

Part of the problem with the 2nd amendment is (let's face it folks) it's poorly written.

"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."

Given the wording, one might see how being part of a militia would be a requirement for you to have a right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, the word "regulation" is problematic because some might see that regulation applying to the arms and not the militia.

I was doing some reading on this, and some of the origins of the Bill of Rights, and since Jefferson and Madison were both from my home state of Virginia, I figured you might be able to find these same ideas expressed in a different way.

And I found it. Section 13 of the Virginia state constitution, adopted one week prior to the Declaration of Independence, states:

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The Founders were concerned about living under tyranny, and they knew that military coups and dictatorships had had a very long and ugly history in Europe. Madison envisioned what is actually is the policy in Switzerland today. Every able-bodied (in those days) male not only had a right to have a firearm, but had a duty to own one, and protect this community, state, and country. That way if anyone ever tried to attack this country, everyone could be called to arms to defend it.

[hogger129]

Given the wording, one might see how being part of a militia would be a requirement for you to have a right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, the word "regulation" is problematic because some might see that regulation applying to the arms and not the militia.

Idk. I think "well regulated militia" is pretty easy to determine that the "regulation" is to the militia, not the arms.

And as for the rest of it, you obviously need an armed citizenry to have a militia. Therefore, the right of the People to keep and bear arms specifically applies to the citizenry, not exclusively to the militia.

[willywonka]

Originally Posted by hogger129

Idk. I think "well regulated militia" is pretty easy to determine that the "regulation" is to the militia, not the arms.

Sure, you and I can see that, but try telling that to a liberal.

I just think that if the wording had been more clear, we wouldn't have to worry about fighting for the right to conceal carry.

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by willywonka

Sure, you and I can see that, but try telling that to a liberal.

I just think that if the wording had been more clear, we wouldn't have to worry about fighting for the right to conceal carry.

Well we are talking about the anti-gun liberals. There are liberals who are pro-gun. I am not one of them.

They "interpret" it in their own way, because like the Brady Campaign, while they are not trying to make it look like they hate guns, all they really want is the total disarmament of the United States. There are plenty of facts that would suggest that high gun control leads to high crime rate. Whereas deregulating guns, and allowing more freedom to law abiding gun owners reduces crime.

A lot of it is that they have their own agenda. Not because they can't read it right.

Just because it doesn't say "right to carry a concealed weapon" doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist. It says "right of the people to keep and bear arms."

The Ninth Amendment could also be thrown into the mix too.

“ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ”

[graehaven]

"well regulated" in the correct context of when it was written meant PRACTICED and READY. It did NOT mean government control - or regulations. There weren't to be ANY regulations on firearms. Ever.

That is the true interpretation.

I should be able to own any and ALL weapons the military has access to.

Period.

You CANNOT have it both ways. You cannot say "well, there are some weapons you shouldn't be allowed to have." That's the slippery slope that leads to gun control, regulation and confiscation. Gee, look where we are today. Hmmmmmmm.

The problem is NOT that we need to regulate private ownership of weapons. The problem IS that we don't execute violent criminals - immediately.

[carver]

We can own any weapon that the military has, we just have to have a back ground check. The Natural right to self protection is a God given right.

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by graehaven

"well regulated" in the correct context of when it was written meant PRACTICED and READY. It did NOT mean government control - or regulations. There weren't to be ANY regulations on firearms. Ever.

That is the true interpretation.

I should be able to own any and ALL weapons the military has access to.

Period.

You CANNOT have it both ways. You cannot say "well, there are some weapons you shouldn't be allowed to have." That's the slippery slope that leads to gun control, regulation and confiscation. Gee, look where we are today. Hmmmmmmm.

The problem is NOT that we need to regulate private ownership of weapons. The problem IS that we don't execute violent criminals - immediately.

Well then you get the anti-gun r-tards that come in saying "does that mean you should be allowed to have nukes." Personally, I am against all nukes. I think it is a power to great for ANYBODY - a government or citizen - to have. Some may disagree. They're entitled to their opinion.

As for other weapons... It's hard to think about. I mean not every citizen has the ability to fly an F-16 around. Not every citizen has the ability to drive a tank.

For firearms - I think they should all be legal and unregulated if you don't have any type of a criminal record - automatics included.