Ten oz

I often read claims that Obama failed to deliver a variety of promises but it is never made clear which ones. Obama did not run on a platform promising "universal healthcare". He ran on the market based system that ultimately passed and in now law. He also never promised that he'd bring peace to the middle east. He promised to end the 2 wars we were in and not knee jerk us into future ones. As for the terror threat level being "much higher" that simply isn't true. We have been high since 9/11. Fear mongering about terrorism has been an active part of every political campaign since 9/11. Obama did not start that and has not raise the bar on that. End of the day more American born young adults have killed people in mass shootings than Islamic terror has on American soil during Obama's presidency. Major policy points where Obama kept campaign promises: Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) - passed Dreamers act - executive action after GOP blocked Promised to work with Iran - a deal has been reached A better economy - GDP is up, stock market is up, unemployment is down

So you defer to a 1939 court interpretation over what the Authors said about the subject? I don't believe the 2nd amendment defines arms as only being what is common to an average person of a given time nor does it allow for the government to define or limit what individuals can have. Alexander Hamilton himslef made it clear in federalist papers 29 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.aspeven within the context of US vs Miller the definition of arms is basically an evolving one since the type of arms availible to an average militia member is always changing. Also US vs Miller was about the national firearms act. The ruling declared the 2nd amendment was not violated. It was not a direct 2nd amendment challange as where by the ruling redefines the amendment itself. As use of a specific type of firearm grows so would the odds that it would be a weapon an average militia member would have access. So US vs Miller doesn't etch in stone which are individuals have the right to. The 2nd amendment seek to empower individuals and limit the government.

This doesn't answer my question. I have clearly stated that the founders wanted people armed. No where have I argued otherwise. I asked if the 2nd Amendment was limiting and if the founders had meant for people to be equally armed to any governmental power?

@ Waitforufo, do you believe the 2nd Amendment is limiting in its definition of arms? Did the authors want the situation we have where the government is so much more heavily armed than individuals? Did the authors of the 2nd Amendment want standing armed government controlled forces?

1 - No confusion at all. The founders idea was that there would be no standing Federal Army or governmentally controlled armed forces and that the citizens themselves would form militias as required to defend and protect. Having locally controlled police forces, State controlled national guards, and standing federal military forces voids that aspect of the original vision. 2 - The 2nd Amendment does not define "arms" as those things only familiar to the authors. The 2nd Amendment is not limiting in anyway. The founders repeatedly spoke about the right to use arms to fight armies akin to the way they had fought England. They used all arms available to them at the time.All the arms needed to win. The idea was to ensure citizens would be able to do as they had done.To that end citizens would use all weapons of war as they had. So to be honest to the 2nd Amandment would be to advocate for individuals having the right to be armed at a leave equal to the government. That is what the founding fathers had envisioned and that would include a lot more than guns. That would also be lunacy which is why everyone chooses to accept that the 2nd Amendment is limiting. That the authors spoke of arms but exclusively meant guns because that was the popular weapon of the day. To acknowledge the amendments full meaning would require it to be amendment and there is no political will for that. No political will to define "Arms" or define gun. 3 - I said in the post you qouted "We can argue that individuals having guns is valuable against an oppressive government, for self protection, as a crime deodorant, and etc ". I acknowledged that there are useful applications worth discussion. My comment was addressing why we have a standing military and police forces today despite the founders clear on the record objections against them. The conditions meant for the 2nd Amendment do not exist and the modern application of it is an evolved one that doesn't follow directly in line with the amendment's original purpose or design. It was meant inform our still forming governments balance of power. The arms being necessary to the security of a free state in part meaning that individuals would be armed and not the government. There are some who attempt to stay true to the original understanding. We generally call them right wing extremist. They form their own militias, are heavily armed, and feel the federal government has no rights over them. By 1788 standards and by the ideas outlined by the founding fathers right wing extremist aren't wrong. However the world isn't static and conditions have changed. Many ideas as outlined either no long exist or are impractical by mordern standards.

Slavery ends itself every time and all time but at the cost of how many lives and after how many years? Slavery is not the only issue example that has been brought up. I also mentioned things like child abuse, rape, incest, and the holocaust. Every time and all the time do child rise up against their abusers, do rape victims rise up against their rapist? Did Jewish people rise up and stop the Nazis? Pure self governing by all individuals defies, in my opinion, human nature. Humans are a social animals. Humans evolved living in groups. Larger groups generally developed skill more quickly as there were more ideals and knowledge being spread than in smaller groups. All socail animals have some form of standards for behavior that governs them. It is not a collection of individuals that all independently do as they wish. Compromises to personal desire always get made to accomodate a group. Soon as an across the board standard is applied individuals are no longer purely self governing. Soon as it is collectively decided that killing people, raping people, or having sexual contact with children is against the standard individuals lose the right to do those things with repercussions.

How did the founders feel and the right to arms: “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; 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.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776 George Mason “And that the said Constitution be never 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; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850) Samuel Adams “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.” – Speech in the United States Congress, January 8, 1790; George Washington: A Collection, compiled and edited by W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), Chapter 11 George Washington “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, New York Packet, January 29, 1788; The Federalist (The Gideon Edition), (1818), James Madison Much was written on this topic during the framing of the country. The founders made it very clear that they believed armed citzens as oppsoed to an armed standing government controlled Army was the greatest way to ensure liberty. The founders spoke of arms being used to fight standing Armies and protect whole communities. In context it make sense. They had just taken up arms and built a civiclian rebellion to earn independence. Individual states and communities self governed and the country to a large extended was still beyond any form of centralized control. Those of us in this thread who would like to see various forms of gun control have been repeatedly told that we don't understand the Second Amendment or distort its meaning to satisfy or opinions. I believe pro gun advocates distort the meaning and intentions behind the Second Amendment much as anyone else. The founders spoke of "arms" not specifically guns. They spoke of combating standing Armies as they had England. They did so with all the "arms" available at the time. To directly translate their vision the United States wouldn't currently have a standing military and the people would be armed. Of course today, as techn has changed, being armed would mean weapons akin to long range missiles. Pro gun advocates are smart enough to not take the Second Amendment there. To tip toe back the definition of "Arms" to mean gun specifically because that was the most widely used weapon at that time. Because advocating for individuals to posses long range missiles is too ridiculous. That is of course the reason why we have a standing Army to today. Because as technology changed our security required it. Armed citizens are not sufficient vs nuclear submarines, jet fighters, and tanks. Armed citizens grabbing the rifle off the mantel above the fireplace doesn't get it done in the modern world. So lets stop accussing each other of not understanding the Second Admendment. Lets stop all the hyerbole about the Second Amendment. What is means, to the people who wrote, no longer exists as a practical thing. We can argue that individuals having guns is valuable against an oppressive government, for self protection, as a crime deodorant, and etc without insisting that the Second Amendment explicitly states that.

I said "every point you have made has been addressed and responded to", the fact that you disagree with the responses does not make my comment any less true. Also I never suggested you would allow for the Tyranny of others. Quite the oppisite actually. I pointed out that your ideas do not provide a means by which end things like slavery or the holocuast. It isn't that you would allow those things but rather you'd simply have no say one way or the other about them at all.

Every point you have made has been addressed and responded to. A courtesy I do not feel you have entirely returned. You started this thread to dicuss this topic and we have all participated isn't that the goal when initiating a thread in this forum? The responses given have been on topic and direct toward the theories you have presented. We are all self governing our own opinions so in a way it is rather ironic that you seem put off by it.

Those that are weak are not the majority? Doesn't that depend on what we are talking about? Those who are poor are most certainly a majority over those who are wealthy for example.

1- I listed positives what are your examples of regression? 2- The North basically did not participate in slavery nor did the United States participate in killing Jewish people during the holocaust. Simply not participating, minding to ones own business, allows horrors to fester. To not participate or to do nothing is not a neutral at. If I saw a parent beating their child I would do something. Sure it is not my child and every parent has the "right" to raise their child as they see fit but as a society, the society I am part of, violence against children is not tolerated. A basic principle the majority agreed trumps an individual parents right. 3 - The various elements that brought about the civil war were in play for decades. As new states joined the Union slavery was prohibited. The South was segregated as the only areas in the unoin where slavery was allowed. Bringing in new slaves was prohibited. Had this not been done it is unclear how many more states may have been slave owning states or how much more powerful the confederacy may have been. More would have died and perhaps slavery would have continued another 50 years or longer. 4 - So it is the responsibility of small children phycially abused by the adults in their life to rise up against their abusers? Women being ganged raped by men to rise up? When can leave victims at the mercy of the "conquerors" but it is only a matter of time beig those conquerors come for everyone else. Only a matter of time before the damage and pain caused by those conqeurors negatively impacts the rest of society. 5 - Democracy is not moral it is cooperation and humans accomplish more when collaberating. It is also compromise. Having to consider the view points of others. Democracy can provide a vioce to the weak by allowing them to union together. More over in isnt the 1600's anymore. We live in an interconnected world. Cooperation is required to managed our interconnected infrastructure. We can use the internet to have this conversation thats to that cooperation. You may have but all help would have been entirely volunteer so perhaps others wouldn't have. How many more months or years do you think the world could have afforded to stay out of it? Continued to allow Nazi's to advance? What if the United States minded its own business a while longer and let ignore the assualt on England while waitig for every individual group of people in the United States to idependently decide to act.

Conway, I am at work and will respond at length in several hours. For now I will simple ask you to consider the holocaust. Jewish people did not rise up to free themselves. It took a multi governmental effort to not only end the holocaust but to defeat the Nazis.

If your comments are not specifically directed or in response to a poster or their statements than perhaps you should not qoute them when making such ramblings. You can post an idea or opinion for discussion without the selective qoutes of other posters.

Making a inherent right to personal freedom argument that allows for polygamy and incest is akin to making one that would allow people to own slaves. Whose freedom are we talking about here? The Alpha's that run a community/family or everones? Surey you are aware of the history of abuse, particulary of females, in communities with polygamy and incest. Who stands up for their rights? It took government action to end slavery, government action to stop the murder and disenfrachisement of Native Americans, government action ended child labor, and government action to end the practice of marying off young teenage girls. Many people will use their own freedom to oppress others. Some family patriachs will honour kill females over personal beliefs if allowed and tolerated. In my opinion the best way for individuals to be assured freedom and a voice in government is through strong centralized democracies. Otherwise the weak (poor, less educated, disabled, minority, etc) won't have a voice. We have seen it through out history.

Please provide the post where I even loosely implied this. You are treating every possible position that isn't your own as equal to a door to door collection of all guns. The only policy I have advocated for in this thread was a requirement gun locks and gun safes. I have not called for disarming. With in what I have advocated in this thread everyone would be allowed to have all the guns they wanted they would just have to lock them up when not using them. To that you carry on about tryant's pitch, the Bill of Rights being disregarded, and depriving US citzens of the their right. It distorts the conversation.

In most calls for individual freedom and empowerment those leading the charge have a specific image of how people will/should behave. Even amongst white land owners I suspect Jefferson would not have felt people looking to practice polygamy or incest should be entitled to self government. I also doubt people practicing Islam or Judaism would have been provided the same courties of self government Quakers were during Jefferson's time. The broad call for every man shrinks considerably upon review. Just as you started this thread with assumptions about how it would be recieved Jefferson had assumptions about how self government would be used and by whom. Not just black slaves but Native Americans clearly weren't deserving in Jefferson mind as well. Even assuming Jefferson's views applied to all with european ancestry is wrong considering that many european immigrants were indentured servants during Jefferson's time. I believe that Jefferson was truly only referencing his peers when he wrote about equility and self government. Not all men, not all Europeans, but merely his peers.

I think it is dificult to understanding to what Jefferson was saying. "Every man, and every body of men on earth" did not posses the ability to self govern in Jeffersons day nor did Jefferson personally advocate for "every man". Were black slave and Native Americans part of the "every body of men on earth"? What was the standard in Jefferson's mind for darawing a line in the sand defining what a man was education, race, place of birth, religion, or something more ambigouis? Also once we acknowledge that "every man" actual meant "certian men" than perhaps "self-govnerment" meant something different as well? Something more akin to a Pope saying a all Priests have the right to preach their own testament. The statement is made with the undertsanding that the testament preached will always fall inline with Catholic constructs.

The numbers are tragic. The arguments that the need outweighs the costs because we might need guns to wage a war against our own government someday or that the foundering fathers meant for it to be this way are weak ones. A more honest argument would probably include a statement acknowledging a lack of empathy for those who are impacted by gun violence. That the tragedy of a stranger isn't strong enough to press action.

The term militia in the United States has been defined and modified by Congress several times throughout U.S. history. As a result, the meaning of "the militia" is complex and has transformed over time.[1] It has historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services). From the U.S. Constitution, Article II (The Executive branch), Sec. 2, Clause 1: "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States." Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are: The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard, however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked. The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia. Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29

It is even more convoluted, in my opinion, than what you describe. Forget about our (USA) massive military. Take it out of the equation because a large federal power oppressing state and local powers is one of the stated concerns of many gun advocates. Every state has a fully militarized national guard that works under the state's Governor and every state has various form(s) of state police. On top of that every county has a sheriffs department and every city has a local police department. All of the above list state and local agencies are armed to the teeth. Assault weapons, tanks, helicopters, body armour, tear gas, etc, etc, etc. So even if the average ordinary citizen were not armed local municipalities would still be heavily protected from outside oppressing interests. The "militia" is already armed and ready. When the constitution was written states did not have contiously manned and armed national guards, aka state militias, and armed police forces did not exist. Impossible to say for sure how a regulated militia would be interrupted under these different conditions.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the United States is also a world leader in capital punishment. More than policing standards or guns I think there is a psychological issue at play. In the United States many people feel that others both deserve to die and that killing those who deserve to die is a heroic act. Whether the number this year is 601 or eventually balloons to over a thousand doesnt really matter. Each instance will require debate to prove the that the dead person didn't deserve it and not the other way around. The total number of dead alone falls on deaf ears. How many of the people killed by police this year didn't have it coming is the only number that might capture the majorities attention. Even then we must keep in mind that the bar for having it coming is very low. Talking back, being guiltly of any crime ever, or failing to accurately follow directions is generally enough for someone to be seen as responsible for their own death at the hands of police.

No, I am saying people can have all the legal guns they want but they have to be responsible with them. Responsible in this context simply means keeping them out of the hands if people who would miss use them. Asking gun owners to use gun locks and gun safes does not equal more prison or more prison inmates. As for the argument that if guns weren't available criminals would just use knives, pipes, bats, etc I disagree. One of the main driving forces for people doing anything is often convieneince or ease. The easier something is to do the more likely people are to do it and vice versa. Easier hiking trails are more well traveled than hard one. It isnt complicated to understand. Robbing a taxi drive or store clerk with a pipe isn't easy as doing it with a gun therefore less people ould be willing to try it.

The constitution once held the view that blacks were 3/5 a person and only land owners deserved the right to vote.The Supreme Court just came to the view that the constitution ensures gay people equal rights. None of it is written in stone. All of it is subjective and can be amended to better serve the will of the people. Any politician who represents the stance that the constitution is a death pack would lose my vote. See how that works?

Here in the United States guns are viewed as a right. Gun safes are expensive and take up space. requiring all gun owners to have one would be viewed as a burden that interfered with with gun owners rights by making the cost of ownership too expensive. So it would only be political practical to ask people with a collection of guns to own a gun safe. Most hunters have a minium of 3 firearms: a rifle for large game like deer, a shotgun for birds, and a pistol for protection. So politically it would never go over requiring gun safes for 3 or less guns. Five or more is a good compromise where people are still being allowed gun ownership without too much governmental burden. As for "when not in use", sadly in the United States some people sleep with guns under their pillows. I have heard it agrued many times that a gun safe would be too difficult to access if a criminal was already in the house walking down the hallway. A silly low percentage scenario for sure but one that is religiously vivid and fresh on the mind of many pro gun advocates. Also many gun owners like to hide guns around the house for quick access. It is a mental dissorder in my opinion but one that millions have and millions more would politically defend. So truly even demanded half the guns be locked in a safe when not in use is a lot to ask for. Again, we are talking about a political enviroment where owning military assualt weapons doesn't raise any eyebrows. Sadly U.S. society doesn't see mass shootings as having anythin to do with guns. Many people honestly feel that if the guns had not been accessible the killers would have just built a bomb and killed just as many if not more people.

I agree with much of what you are saying however society as a whole in the United States is not to a point where the measures you have stated would be tolerated. Perhaps someday but not now. We can't even ban military grade assault weapons.I would like to see legislation passed requiring gun locks on all firearms not stored in a gun safe and a requirement for gun safes to be owned by anyone possessing more than 5 firearms with the caveat that at least half of all guns owned be stored with when not in use. No authority physically inspect anyone's home. A citizen simply signs a statement of acknowledgement of the requirement when purchasing a firearm. Then if a firearm ends up stolen, used in a crime, accidental shooting, or etc the authorities would have some legal footing to investigate if the gun owner was behaving responsibly. If it turns out they weren't than they should be held liable.