I believe that idiots should be free to say whatever they want.

But I feel a moral obligation to refrain from paying them any lip service for it.

Thank you for that. I think.

Somebody explain to me how I can add @baden to my iggy list and ignore all his comments. He is a dedicated Sophist who uses Sophistry and lies with every exhalation of his mouth. He now has at least two strikes in a row against him. I am sure a third is soon forthcoming.

Is there anyone posting or reading here who argues there should be no infringement of the rights to own and bear arms? I'm thinking there is not.

including all the amendments. — hks

You realize don't you that the amendments were put in place by people who didn't agree with the constitution and wanted to change it? i.e. if everyone who had disagreed with the constitution had always left, you wouldn't have your gun amendment. So, it's a self-defeating argument you're proposing.

Somebody explain to me how I can add @baden to my iggy list and ignore all his comments. He is a dedicated Sophist who uses Sophistry and lies with every exhalation of his mouth. — hks

Well, the last exhalation was just a sigh. But you are under no obligation to respond and we won't ask that you leave for having opinions we disagree with. We're rather American like that.

Born and bred in the USA should leave the USA if they cannot support the U.S. Constitution including all the amendments. — hks

That does not equate this:

There is a gun behind every blade of grass. I am glad.

Anyone who is not glad about that should move to Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, Scotland, Singapore, Wales or someplace else outside the English Speaking World. — hks

Your original comment wasn't about the US Constitution it was about you being glad about guns and people who weren't glad should move according to you. Just some opinion wasting space on this forum then. I wasn't putting any words in your mouth as you're quite capable of making an ass out of yourself without my help. All I was trying to do was helping you figure out the inanity of your position.

Seems you like trolling

The 2nd Amendment was instituted to facilitate the Body Politic in defending the Constitution and the Nation from tyrants. However it has mostly seen its main application in self defense against crime on the streets such as robbery and murder. — hks

I think the amendment is quite clear, but a lot of people suffer from dyslexia when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

Sure, people understand the " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", but the trouble seems to understand the A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State part of the amendment at all.

What is the problem to understand what a 'well regulated militia' means and that the militia it is intended for the protection of the State called the United States, the goddam government?

What is the difficulty to understand that when written this kind of national defence was totally logical and rational? (And btw. would be if the US wasn't a superpower protected by two large oceans.)

Nope, the thinking has transformed to this whimsical loonie idea that any moron, that has enough money to buy a semi-automatic version of an assault rifle, somehow belongs then to this mythical "well regulated militia" and the free State isn't the US government, as that is the bogeyman for these idiots who fear their own government taking their guns away. As if having an arsenal of guns is somehow a deterrence to the sole superpower that has the biggest security apparatus in the West. As if the actual way of preventing your own government of falling into tyranny wouldn't to be an informed active citizen that takes part in the democratic political process.

Nope, the thinking has transformed this whimsical loonie idea that any moron, that has enough money to buy an semi-automatic version of an assault rifle, somehow belongs then to this mythical "well regulated militia" and the free State isn't the US government, as that is the bogeyman for these idiots who fear their own government taking their guns away. As if having an arsenal of guns is somehow a deterrence to the sole superpower that has the biggest security apparatus in the West. As if the actual way of preventing your own government of falling into tyranny wouldn't be to an informed active citizen that takes part in the democratic political process. — ssu

Absolutely, positively, Amen!

So you @ssu are regurgitating the minority dissent on the SCOTUS in Heller.

You should confess your sins up front when you sin like this.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

To state the absurdity of the lunatic fantasies of some gunowners in the US has nothing to do with the case of District of Columbia vs Heller, actually.

The District of Columbia wanted among other things a ban on handguns so strict that even a policeman, the famous Heller in that case, wouldn't get one.

Even in Europe a total ban on handguns would stir up a debate about basic rights of the citizenry. The UK is more of an exception here (with it's handgun ban) and typically the most strict gun laws you find in Asian countries. Hence when the US Supreme Court decided, not uninamously, but by a majority decision, that the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was unconstitutional, it has nothing to do with my point: that the Free State referred in the 2nd Amendment is the US, which is represented by it's government and the whole idea is about defending the state. It doesn't say "Any man or woman has the right to bear a firearm to counter the threat of the government becoming tyrannical (or liberal), if he or she feels so." That simply is crazy, yet it is a perfect way for some to be have this delusional idea (or hubris) that they are somehow so free and independent, because they own firearms. As if that would be the guarantee that the US cannot fall under authoritarian rule. The safety valves for that are totally somewhere else.

Any man or woman has the right to bear a firearm to counter the threat of the government becoming tyrannical — ssu

That was the original intention of the 2nd amendment.

That was the original intention of the 2nd amendment. — frank

Which then goes against the "well regulated militia part" intended for the protection of the state, if you haven't noticed.

Or, wait a minute, does it mean that the well regulated militia takes care about the whole system?

As you might expect, there's a lot of information out there about it. Check it out.

Yeah, ton of literature especially pushed out by the gun lobby. Yet the argument is simply nuts if you would stop and think about it.

Because if you have to rise up in arms against your own government that ought to be defined by the Constitution, you've already lost any trace of democracy and a justice state in the first place. Everything in the Constitution starting from the independence of the three branches of government is designed to prevent autocratic rule. Preventing tyranny from the inside comes from an informed citizenry who will not vote for autocratic people who want to wreck the whole system. And any autocrat will easily deal with the "2nd Amendment people" just by allowing them to keep their guns. If the citizenry desperately wants to ruin their own republic, owning a rifle won't prevent it.

In fact thinking that you need a rifle against your own government could be intrepreted in that you simply don't believe the whole system works in the first place. So what are you going to do? Shoot the mailman because he is a government employee? That solves all the problems, really?

And, would you go to a McDonald's or a Chuckie Cheese or a football game or anywhere else if everyone there had a gun?

Where do you stand on this debate? — Brian

I'm in favor of whatever would work to significantly diminish gun violence. And I'm willing to try very radical things to attempt to diminish gun violence--anything from a complete ban on ALL firearms to manditorily arming and training everyone, and everything we can think of in between those two extremes. Whatever would work is cool with me. But we need to actually try to do something. We can't just ignore it or just make some completely insignificant token move as if it's going to do anything. I don't care one way or another about the second amendment. My only goal would be to virtually eliminate gun violence.

And, would you go to a McDonald's or a Chuckie Cheese or a football game or anywhere else if everyone there had a gun? — tim wood

I walk among my fellow state citizens, who have decided, as a whole citizenry, that not only should you be allowed to carry a concealed weapon but you should do so in accordance with state, local and private owners posted laws/rules. We legislated 'trust' in our local government, to 'trust' us as individual citizens, to make the life altering decisions of carrying a gun/firearm.

The places you listed are privately owned establishments and they have made their rules about firearms abundantly clear with signage that will be respected.

Is your real question whether or not I fear my fellow citizens being armed?

My only goal would be to virtually eliminate gun violence. — Terrapin Station

In a Utopian world man would have no sense of fear of harm to himself and his family. However to remove an emotional response, to a fundamental need of self preservation would be dehumanizing, no?
(dehumanizing- in the sense of removing a fundamental aspect of what makes us up as humans emotionally)

Yeah, ton of literature especially pushed out by the gun lobby. Yet the argument is simply nuts if you would stop and think about it. — ssu

Its not an argument. It's a fact. I wouldn't ask you to read a history of the U.S., but there's a wikipedia article on the 2nd amendment that would help you understand the original intention. Ok?

What does that have to do with my comments? I wasn't saying anything about emotions.

What does that have to do with my comments? I wasn't saying anything about emotions. — Terrapin Station

I'm in favor of whatever would work to significantly diminish gun violence. And I'm willing to try very radical things to attempt to diminish gun violence--anything from a complete ban on ALL firearms to manditorily arming and training everyone, and everything we can think of between those two extremes. I don't care one way or another about the second amendment. My only goal would be to virtually eliminate gun violence. — Terrapin Station

You are asking people to think of everything we can between two extremes and I am suggesting that within all the good that can come from different ways of helping curb illegal gun violence, comes human emotion. If the human emotion and connection isn't recognized than all the "thinking" about everything in between those two extremes becomes irrelevant to the gun owners who accept the responsibility to own and carry a firearm.

You are asking people to think of everything we can between two extremes and I am suggesting that within all the good that can come from different ways of helping curb illegal gun violence, comes human emotion. If the human emotion and connection isn't recognized than all the "thinking" about everything in between those two extremes becomes irrelevant to the gun owners who accept the responsibility to own and carry a firearm. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I'm not advocating thinking, but doing.

We have to actually make some major changes by doing something. One thing we can try is simply banning firearms.

Is your real question whether or not I fear my fellow citizens being armed? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

My real question is the one I asked. If you entered a place of public accommodation and saw everyone "heeled," would you feel comfortable, would you stay? I myself would wonder what was wrong with my community that ordinary folks in ordinary situations felt the need to carry arms. I'd be inclined to think much folks were in themselves dangerous. When did a gun become a necessary adjunct of ordinary attire? What are they thinking, exactly? To my way of thinking an unnecessary gun is the sign of either very immature person or one with a significant personality disorder - neither of which should have a gun.

Its not an argument. It's a fact. I wouldn't ask you to read a history of the U.S., but there's a wikipedia article on the 2nd amendment that would help you understand the original intention. Ok? — frank

Then the question, which is obvious even from the Wikipedia article, was the fear against a standing professional army, which btw you have now as the last remnants of that idea of an armed militia, the selective draft, has been ended and only about 1% of the people serve in the military. But what you do have are many incorrect memes putting words into the mouth of George Washington as if he was warning to be armed against the republic he was founding.

Then the question, which is obvious even from the Wikipedia article, was the fear against a standing professional army, which btw you have now as the last remnants of that idea of an armed militia, the selective draft, has been ended and only about 1% of the people serve in the military. But what you do have are many incorrect memes putting words into the mouth of George Washington as if he was warning to be armed against the republic he was founding. — ssu

What?

This forum provides a fascinating window into how people in various places make up their own USA and react to it. It makes me wonder if I'm doing the same thing. Do I just have a cartoon version of the history of Iraq, for instance? Do I actually understand so little about Europe that I can't really be said to understand the world I live in?

I guess it's possible, but is there any way to rectify that? I notice that you, ssu, won't even consider the possibility that there's something fundamental you don't understand about American history. Am I also so convinced of a completely erroneous conception of China, for instance, that I wouldn't take advantage of an opportunity to learn even if it was handed to me?

What if we're actually all like that: so enamored of our own bullshit that we're each, for all practical purposes, living in separate worlds, unable to communicate with one another?

Hmm.

Frank, you just promote the (cartoon?) image of Americans that think the biggest threat to them is the US government, but having guns solves the problem.

No, I didn't.

Well, above you did say that the original intention of the 2nd amendment was for the citizens to stop the government, here meaning their own government, from getting tyrannical. And this of course is a very popular view in the US.

However here the reference to the 'well trained militia' part is also important as otherwise you can have mob rule. One only has to note the much different path that the American revolution took from the French revolution or from many other revolutions. Once the first "populist" was elected later, many institutions of the republic had already settled down.

Basically the issue is that while a citizen of a republic ought to be critical and sceptical about the government, this shouldn't grow into total distrust and paranoia. If you have to start fighting with a rifle in your hand your own Republic, in my view that republic has gone astray and died a long time ago.

Well, above you did say that the original intention of the 2nd amendment was for the citizens to stop the government, here meaning their own government, from getting tyrannical. And this of course is a very popular view in the US. — ssu

The USA was originally envisioned as a loose association of states with common interests. The federal government was supposed to be distant and fairly unimportant to the average citizen as the ideal was maximal decentralization.

Did you read what the wiki article explained about Madison's view?

I would encourage you to stop focusing on what makes the most sense to you and focus more on actuality. Human life is often counter intuitive.

The USA was originally envisioned as a loose association of states with common interests. — frank

Originally envisioned, as you say. I would encourage you to focus more on actuality too.

Yet I presume that as the anti-gun lobby has also raised similar questions about the amendment phrasing (and I think was central in the supreme court minority thinking), I think you don't get my point.

One might make the case of owning firearms for self-defence against crime, although people will have various views about it. Yet the idea that the Republic is your potential enemy and that you would get protection from having guns against the government, especially on like the US, is in my view not "healthy sceptism", but paranoia.