Gun Control vs. D.W.I.

Again you ducked and dodged the ONE question i asked you and then accuse me of being evasive. Your whole argument seems to be that gun rights advocates dont care about societal problems(which is untrue and based solely on your opinion). You present your opinion as if it were fact. Many of the questions you keep posting i have already given an answer to. Yes i realize that different subjects are connected by common issues, but you dont seem to acknowledge the fact that one could be an advocate for the right to bear arms and also want to fix other societal problems. Its not an either or situation.
Its you that doesnt understand how to debate. It takes two arguing to have a rational debate. All you do is wait for someone to post then analyze and attack their opinion, while not posting your own ideas and opinions. I dont even know where you really stand on the issue of fixing societal problems. You dont have a position to criticize. Also if it seems like im being evasive its because im tired of reading your two page long responses to my paragraph long posts. Cramming more words in there doesnt make you any more right. Try keeping your responses concise and to the point instead of going off topic and they will be easier to respond to. Im getting tired of copying, pasting, and quoting.

 

um. no.

It's the truth.

 

Coreal

Again you ducked and dodged the ONE question i asked you and then accuse me of being evasive.

I presume that question is - “How do you think we should go about fixing the societal problems you keep speaking about?”

How am I ducking and dodging this question when I’ve answered it twice already?

Here - http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4278697&postcount=55

And here –
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4281635&postcount=59

As I’ve said both times – “Here are a few musings – if you want more detail on any one of them you can start a thread.
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/sho...423&postcount=9

But if you do be prepared to answer as well as ask questions”

*

Your whole argument seems to be that gun rights advocates dont care about societal problems(which is untrue and based solely on your opinion).

My theory based on what I’ve heard and read (including posts on the forums) is that for many Americans guns have become a way of ignoring societal problems. They have come to see guns as a way of dealing with the symptoms of societal problems and therefore they have come to think very little about the causes of those problems.

It’s a theory, an opinion, I don’t believe I’ve said otherwise (but I’m on record as saying I only see it as a theory).

I presented it as a theory well over a year ago and it has stood up pretty well, some people don’t seem to like it and call it untrue but they haven’t actually refuted it. I mean just calling something untrue because you don’t like it isn’t a reasonable or rational argument.

**

You present your opinion as if it were fact.

As I’ve said I’ve actually stated many times that it’s a theory, a theory that seems to be standing up.

On the other hand many people have expressed there opinion as true – such as giving the opinion that something is untrue (it is a truth that something is wrong) without putting up any reasons beyond it seems belief.

**

Many of the questions you keep posting i have already given an answer to.

I don’t think you have at least not in this thread; can you please point out where, maybe give a link or quote your supposed answers?

I’ve seen this kind of dishonest trick used before, claiming things that don’t exist.

**

Yes i realize that different subjects are connected by common issues, but you dont seem to acknowledge the fact that one could be an advocate for the right to bear arms and also want to fix other societal problems. Its not an either or situation.

But you and other pro-gunners are very load when promoting guns as a means of dealing with the symptoms of societal problems but when asked about their thoughts on dealing with the causes of those problems they seem to become shy, taciturn or positively evasive.

**

Its you that doesnt understand how to debate. It takes two arguing to have a rational debate. All you do is wait for someone to post then analyze and attack their opinion, while not posting your own ideas and opinions.

Someone started a post on Gun control vs DWI and I replied giving my position, my views and my ideas. (post 27)

You made comments and criticisms of my views and asked a questions. (post 28)

I replied to you comments, tried to address your criticisms and answered your questions (post 30) as well as setting out my position a bit more.

You replied in the confusing post 33 with some comments.

I gave my returning comments and sort clarifications in posts 44 and 45

After that you just seemed to stop debating, post 46 didn’t answer any of the questions asked or addressed the issues raised – it seemed like a brush off.

I again tried to get some clarification on your views as well as commenting on the scenario raised (post 52 - 53)

You gave me what seemed like another brush off in post 54

After that I’ve been trying to find out about your views but you seem to be refusing to discuss things in any reasonable way.

**

I dont even know where you really stand on the issue of fixing societal problems. You dont have a position to criticize.

Ok lets just take the first few things on the list I linked to –

A National Heath Service free at the point of service.

Investment in infrastructural networks such as clinics, cheap public transport, low cost housing, schools, training centres, etc, and the people to run them.

Trying to move away from the idea that a person’s social status is only (or mostly) based on material possessions.

Trying to replace a destructive individualism with more community based ideas.

Trying to limiting the more destructive forms of consumerism by encouraging saving.

Banning of all advertising aimed at children and making sure all children have access to child care and a nursery place (subsidised according to wealth)

Regulating drug laws making some legal (giving licences to small businesses) and others given through proscription while dealing with the addiction. The money taken in taxes been used to finance free rehab centres and realistic drug education programmes.

Prostitution would be legalised regulated and taxed, with the money raised being used in try and educate people about the sex industry, tackling STD’s and getting people out of the trade if they want to.

So Coreal this doesn’t give you a clue, an inkling, an iota of the smallest hint, it leaves you totally and utterly in the dark and without a trace of an idea as to me views?

As I’ve said (more than once) if you want to go into more detail start a new thread but be ready to answer as well as ask questions this time.

**

Also if it seems like im being evasive its because im tired of reading your two page long responses to my paragraph long posts.

You’re so lazy, you can’t be bothered to read what’s being said?

And if you’ve never bothered to read anything that opposes or questions your viewpoint let alone answer them how do you know you’re views stands up to scrutiny?

**

Cramming more words in there doesnt make you any more right.

I’m not claiming to be right, I’m asking you some questions and you seem unable or unwilling to answer them?

**

Try keeping your responses concise and to the point instead of going off topic and they will be easier to respond to. Im getting tired of copying, pasting, and quoting.

But you’re not quoting, copying or answering, that’s the problem. You’re just telling me you have answered but don’t seem able to point out where or quote them.

**

 

A National Heath Service free at the point of service.

Investment in infrastructural networks such as clinics, cheap public transport, low cost housing, schools, training centres, etc, and the people to run them.

Trying to move away from the idea that a person’s social status is only (or mostly) based on material possessions.

Trying to replace a destructive individualism with more community based ideas.

Trying to limiting the more destructive forms of consumerism by encouraging saving.

Banning of all advertising aimed at children and making sure all children have access to child care and a nursery place (subsidised according to wealth)

Regulating drug laws making some legal (giving licences to small businesses) and others given through proscription while dealing with the addiction. The money taken in taxes been used to finance free rehab centres and realistic drug education programmes.

Prostitution would be legalised regulated and taxed, with the money raised being used in try and educate people about the sex industry, tackling STD’s and getting people out of the trade if they want to.

such novel ideas! i wonder why these things were not thought of by anyone else?
balbus you are a true visionary!!!!
i have another idea! please tell me your opinion,
end censorship of pepoles ideas, thoughts, opinions and statements!!
would that not go a long way to creating a better world?

 

Here are some of the ideas i posted previously for fixing societal problems:

"Many violent criminals are released early to make room for nonviolent drug offenders and the like. I believe that ending the drug war would do wonders to reduce crime in this country. Thats one necessary step, but not the only one."

"We should also be more strict on sentencing for violent crimes so that there are less criminals around to get guns."

"I believe we should be taking steps to combat violence and crime, i just dont think disarming our citizens is a good way to go about it. Increasing education and opportunities for the poorer citizens in our country is one good step. Getting people involved in helping others in schools at a young age , and instilling a love of learning are key to creating a cohesive, intelligent society. We are currently failing miserably in this department."

"I dont have all the answers, but id say that if the government would spend more money finding better ways to educate people and reduce poverty than they spend invading coutries and killing middle easterners, we'd be off to a good start."

Here, allow me to elaborate and add some more ideas:

End the war on drugs, specifically the war on marijuana and soft drug users and sellers. Then we could focus on treatment for hard drug users. This would drastically reduce our prison population and also allow room for more violent offenders.

Quit spending trillions on unnecessary wars of aggression overseas and use it to revamp our educational system. We should start paying teachers more in order to attract intelligent people to the profession. The majority of high school and elementary school teachers that i have encountered are ignorant and dont understand how to teach properly. Maybe if the salary for teachers was more than $30,000 a year, some smart people might consider it. We should also rethink the way in which we teach our children. We should be teaching them how to think instead of what to think. Some of the first subjects that should be taught to kids imo are logic and ethics, but they usually dont teach that until late highschool or college. The way the majority of schools teach is by rote memorization, which leads to boredom and complacency, and will most likely be forgotten anyway. And then they wonder why kids today dont care very much for learning. Encourage creativity and individualism and teach subjects to kids in a way that they can understand, that relates to their life, and they will be more eager to learn.

Have school children involved in community service programs, so that from a young age, they learn what life is like for people different from themselves. Also get them involved with cleaning up the environment. Maybe then they wouldnt be so eager to litter and destroy it.

We also need comprehensive immigration reform. Secure our borders while allowing immigrants already working here to legally gain citizenship. Punish the corporations who exploit immigrant labor.

I could keep going but ill save it for the proper thread. Does this answer any of your questions?

 

For those who weren't a part of the thread: http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231360 , this one is starting to look a bit like it.


Unfortunately, a certain moderator (who is now posting at length on this thread) closed that topic, but not before banning and deleting the posts of some who he simply could not agree with.

 

now michael dont be to hard on poor balbus, he tryes! its not his fault he thinks himself better and more intelligent than outhers! he is a product of his upbringing!! he was taught at an early age that his thoughs,ideas, and opinions, are of more conseqence than outhers! he was taught at that early age that if you reapete things often enugh pepole will beleive it! is not his fault! he was taught how to avoid direct questions, by saying they were ADDRESSED,! rather than awsering the question! he doesnt ban pepole for voicing an opinion, its because they are TROLLING,AND HIGHJACKING threads, to speak their mind!! and we certainly cant have any of that! that would be unacceptable!!!
OK!IM done,
peace!

 

ohh sorry i meant to say it seems as though, before the above statement.
PEACE!

 

Coral

LOL

You really don’t know how to debate do you.

Person A, makes a statement

Person B, comments on it, makes what criticisms they have of it and/or asks questions.

Person A, then makes their own comments, addresses any criticisms raised and answers the questions.

You seem to miss out the third step and instead repeat the statement without answering the questions or addressing the comments made.

**

Here are some of the ideas i posted previously for fixing societal problems:

All of which have questions already made against them why stall by repeating the statements rather than answer the questions?

**

"Many violent criminals are released early to make room for nonviolent drug offenders and the like. I believe that ending the drug war would do wonders to reduce crime in this country. Thats one necessary step, but not the only one."

And here are the comments and questions already made –

“Are you saying these people were born violent criminals?

As to the war on drugs what are you ideas for ending it?”

**


"We should also be more strict on sentencing for violent crimes so that there are less criminals around to get guns."

And here are the comments and questions already made –

“But if you don’t tackle the reasons why people are turning to crime them by removing one set of criminals wouldn’t you just be making way for a new set?”

**

"I believe we should be taking steps to combat violence and crime, i just dont think disarming our citizens is a good way to go about it”

And here are the comments and questions already made –

“But I’m not talking about banning all guns, I believe in regulation as you do.”

**

Increasing education and opportunities for the poorer citizens in our country is one good step. Getting people involved in helping others in schools at a young age , and instilling a love of learning are key to creating a cohesive, intelligent society. We are currently failing miserably in this department."

And here are the comments and questions already made –

“I agree but the question is how? There doesn’t seem to be much interest in such ideas but there is a lot of interest in defending or promoting guns as a means of dealing with the symptoms of societal problems.”

**

"I dont have all the answers, but id say that if the government would spend more money finding better ways to educate people and reduce poverty than they spend invading coutries and killing middle easterners, we'd be off to a good start."

And here are the comments and questions already made –

“I’ve already pointed out to you that – “I totally agree, but that’s it, what are the ideas of the gun advocate and do they have any, because I’ve been in close conversation with many for over a year and I’ve talked to many others over the years and while being very strong on the idea that guns are a good means of dealing with the symptoms of societal problems they have been very weak on what to do about the causes and seem very reluctant to talk about them.”

(PS- I also agree that the US shouldn’t be invading other countries but it has been doing it for nearly all of its existence usually due to the belief that one form of threat or another existed or that it had a ‘manifest destiny’. If you truly believe the US is going to be invaded would it be better to attack rather than wait for the invaders to attack?) “

**

Here, allow me to elaborate and add some more ideas:

Great so these are a couple of subjects you wish to explore in detail, fair enough I’ll begin separate threads.

Stop the war on drugs, but what then?
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4296544#post4296544

Finance Education not war.
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4296552#post4296552

*

(Does this answer any of your questions? Not exactly, but as thread beginners they may be a start.)

**

 

You claim i didnt explain how to accomplish these ideas but then cut off the last portion of my post in your response in which i explained how to accomplish my ideas in greater detail. The only part you quoted was the part in which i quoted earlier posts. You claimed i was not giving any ideas to fight societal problems and i posted evidence to the contrary, then you bash me for repeating myself. Im through debating this since it isnt even about gun rights any more. On to the next thread.

 

Coral

The point I’m making is that many of the pro-gunners coming to this site seem very enthusiastic in their promotion of guns as a way of dealing with the symptoms of societal problems while seemingly giving little thought to the causes.

I’ve pointed out that they seem to sly away from any debate on such things.

You seem to be doing that when you make statements but then don’t seem able or willing to answer my questions or address my comments but instead just repeat the statements.

That’s not debate, so can you answer the outstanding questions or do you need more time to think?

**

As to the bits of ‘greater detail’ I’ve placed them at the beginning of new threads so that we can discuss them separately, as was suggested.

Did you read my post because I already said that and gave links to the new threads, here they are again –

Stop the war on drugs, but what then?
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/sho...544#post4296544

Finance Education not war.
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/sho...552#post4296552

**

And I’m not sure this thread is about ‘gun rights’ it’s title is – ‘Gun Control vs. D.W.I., which as I pointed out suggest you have to choose one or the other, when any sensible person could have views and possible policies for both. The person had added some pro-gun ‘arguments’ but as I pointed out these seemed to consist of slogans and slogans are not rational arguments they are what people use when they don’t have rational arguments that seem to be more about shutting down discussion not opening it up.

**

 

Guns don't kill people, I do. I've brought your questions up with some colleagues as a matter of discussion, and here of some of the views that were shared. Some in the discussion feel more safe with a gun in their house as means of last resort protection. They also "care" for societal problems, but not to the point that they question their decision to own a gun as protection and would instead decide to become societies healers. THEY felt that the taxes they pay should fund the departments and programs in place that address some of these problems, and if this is not being done, is something that should be taken up with lawmakers. It is quite obvious that some of the societal problems are contributors to violent crime, but they failed to see the direct connection to gun ownership rights.

I would say that I agreed with most in the discussion. While I care about the problems affecting our society, I neither have the time or the desire to try and tackle all of the issues that contribute to violent crime. Unfortunately I am away from home quite often. While I live in a good area, because of this frequent absence, I have taken measures to combat against potential break in or property damage. When I am home, as a creature of habit, and for other unsaid reasons, I keep a loaded gun accessible.

I know how much you like slogans and analogies, but this was a good point that was brought up in our discussion that seems to reflect your viewpoint. Do you think that by putting airbags in automobiles, we are ignoring the reasons why accidents happen? Shouldn't we be more focused on driver ability, street signing, traffic law reinforcement, etc..? By ignoring these issues you don't seem to care about whether or not the accidents happen and rely on an airbag as means to your own personal safety. (Don't mean to derail the subject talking about traffic accidents, but I see the similarity between your argument and this)

 

wacky

Guns don't kill people, I do.

For a living or just as a hobby?

**

I've brought your questions up with some colleagues as a matter of discussion, and here of some of the views that were shared. Some in the discussion feel more safe with a gun in their house as means of last resort protection.

But why are they so afraid, why do they fear the society they live in? Why not try and work toward a society where they didn’t feel so afraid?

Again and again from many pro-gunners I get this sense of fear or paranoia, they fear their fellow citizens, they fear criminality, they fear the imminent collapse of society, they fear the government, they fear, they fear, they fear, and so they turn to guns and seemingly hide behind them, not asking why. Why do they have these fears?

Try reading what I’ve said here -
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438947&postcount=7

**

They also "care" for societal problems, but not to the point that they question their decision to own a gun as protection and would instead decide to become societies healers.

But do they ‘care’ for their society or just say they do, shrug their shoulders and move on? Many pro-gunners who have come to this site to loudly and vehemently promote guns as a means of societal control have also claimed to ‘care’ and to have thought about societal problems but when asked they have seemed unable or unwilling to discuss their views and ideas in any detail or just simply refused to do so.

They seem to think the ‘caring’ is someone else’s problem.

**

THEY felt that the taxes they pay should fund the departments and programs in place that address some of these problems, and if this is not being done, is something that should be taken up with lawmakers. It is quite obvious that some of the societal problems are contributors to violent crime, but they failed to see the direct connection to gun ownership rights.

Oh yes, as I said, someone else’s problem.

But the thing is that many pro-gunners are vigorous in promoting guns as a means of tackling the symptoms but seem less inclined (if at all) in promoting ideas to tackle the causes of societal problems.

The thing is that this belief that guns will get them through the symptoms of societal problems means that many don’t seem to think about the causes and why things have got to that point or how to improve society so they wouldn’t feel they needed a gun to get them through.

**

I would say that I agreed with most in the discussion. While I care about the problems affecting our society, I neither have the time or the desire to try and tackle all of the issues that contribute to violent crime.

So you don’t give it much though, it’s someone else’s problem, but why is your society the way it is, have you never wondered? Maybe the problem is that many people seem to give little thought for their community?

You live in a democratic republic where government policy is meant to be, of the people, by the people and for the people, if that’s not true, what’s gone wrong?

**

Unfortunately I am away from home quite often. While I live in a good area, because of this frequent absence, I have taken measures to combat against potential break in or property damage. When I am home, as a creature of habit, and for other unsaid reasons, I keep a loaded gun accessible.

You are so afraid of the society you live in you keep a loaded gun accessible. But wouldn’t you want to live in a society where you were not constantly afraid? And it cannot be healthy to live with that fear nagging away at the back of your thoughts.

Now you might say that it isn’t fear it is just a precaution, but is feeling you need a loaded gun accessible the sign of a mind or society, free of fear?

**

 

I know how much you like slogans and analogies, but this was a good point that was brought up in our discussion that seems to reflect your viewpoint. Do you think that by putting airbags in automobiles, we are ignoring the reasons why accidents happen? Shouldn't we be more focused on driver ability, street signing, traffic law reinforcement, etc..?

Why would it be either/or?

Either air bags or accident reduction?

Either trying to prevent harm while in an accident or trying where possible to prevent accidents happening?

Isn’t it more sensible to try and reduced the possibility of harm across the board?

I’m not saying people shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves in a reasonable way but I do think society has a responsibility to try and reduce harm to it’s citizens where possible.

**

In the UK automobile accident data is collected and correlated so that accident black spots can be highlighted and the reason for accidents happening discovered so action can be taken as needed (such as installing traffic lights or road signs, putting in new speed restrictions or traffic calming or simply increasing visibility). This is an ongoing operation due to changes in road use and changing demographics.

I would hope you had something similar going on in the US?

Many societies try to set regulate drivers and driving and the type of regulation is often dependent on the number of drivers, the higher the number the more regulation is usually needed. The UK is a small island with a lot of cars.

We test drivers ability through a testing and licensing scheme, backed up with a penalty point system for bad driving (get too many points and you loose your licence). Again these things are constantly under review to see if improvements to the testing or the regulation of licences can be made (I believe the last driving test update was in 2003).

Also all cars are registered and their owners known and a driver must have insurance cover.

What happens in the US, can anyone that buy’s a car be able to take it on the road without licence or insurance or having it registered?

On the other side car manufactures, bring in new safely features as technology allows because cars can be sold on their safety (and I believe it reduces the insurance premiums) A new safety feature I’ve heard about is proximity braking systems that apply the brakes if the cars gets close to something even if the driver doesn’t. But a certain level of car safety is regulated for. New cars have to pass safety test before being allowed to be sold and existing cars have to pass a yearly MOT and that certificate has to be valid for the car to be allowed on the road. Then there are other things like safety belt laws and baby car seat regulations etc.

**

Now guns are weapons sold for how unsafe they are, that is, how much harm they can do to the target or how accurately it can be hit.

And that’s the thing guns are not cars.

For example the data for gun crimes and accidents are already collected and correlated, but where areas of concern are highlighted many pro-gunners seem against any action being taken or argue for the removal of regulations and legislation already in place. The equivalent idea transposed to automobiles is that there shouldn’t be any tests of driving ability, street signing, traffic laws, etc.

But let’s take the things that we have been using to try and reduce harm from having a lot of automobiles in a society and impose them on gun ownership?

All gun owners would need to pass a test of competence to get a gun licence and have a current licence.

All guns would need to be registered and any theft or resale reported and logged.

Insurance would be needed to be paid up and valid.

Accidents or misuse (e.g. having a gun while intoxicated) could result in penalty points, increased insurance payments or loss of licence.

All guns would be needed to be inspected once a year for the licence to be renewed.

Now some people wouldn’t care about such rules but many pro-gunners I’ve talked would think them an outrageous attack.

**

By ignoring these issues you don't seem to care about whether or not the accidents happen and rely on an airbag as means to your own personal safety. (Don't mean to derail the subject talking about traffic accidents, but I see the similarity between your argument and this)

I think this is my argument?

So by seemingly ignoring the wider societal problems you don't seem to care about bringing about a better society and instead rely on guns as means to your own personal safety.


**

I’m glad you are discussing this more widely and hope you will give your friends my replies to their comments.

**

 

I think the main issue here is being forgotten. We have a right to bear arms in the constitution. Simple as that. Driving is not a constitutional protected right. Those who advocate requiring insurance, testing, etc., are only doing so to try and make gun ownership financially impossible. Give me any example of a right guaranteed by the constitution which requires all this regualtion and expense. I gave quotes from anti-gun politicians who try and imposed these taxes and fees on gun owners so high that it will in effect make gun ownership financially impossible. It's simply a regulatory way to circumvent the constituuion without challenging the amendment itself.

"With a 10,000% tax we could tax them out of existence."
--U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Washington Post 11/4/93

"I want to make it as hard as possible. Gun owners would have to be evaluated by how they scored on written and firing tests, and have to pass the tests in order to own a gun. And I would tax the guns, bullets and the license itself very heavily."
-- Jocelyn Elders, U.S. Surgeon General, Mother Jones magazine, Jan/Feb '94

 

Paul1968

I think the main issue here is being forgotten. We have a right to bear arms in the constitution. Simple as that.

“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.”

If hasn’t been forgotten it’s been addressed here many times. The thing is that it is still a mote point as to this ‘right’ existing, and have regulated militias, even well regulated ones, got that much relevance to modern day America?

At the time of the amendment’s drafting, militias were about all the state had and there were threats to their borders (e.g. the British in Canada and the Indian territories). But the US has a standing professional army and tons of nuclear weapons.

In medieval England there used to be local town and border militias, and their were even laws brought in to try and get people to do longbow training, just in case they might be needed to defend the kingdom from Welsh or Scots marauders. But such militias and laws aren’t relevant anymore and have been dropped.


**

Driving is not a constitutional protected right.

But the driving/car thing is a common theme brought up by many pro-gunners as a means to defend gun ownership.

**

Those who advocate requiring insurance, testing, etc., are only doing so to try and make gun ownership financially impossible. Give me any example of a right guaranteed by the constitution which requires all this regualtion and expense.

Well who protects the rights? If it is the people they haven’t done a very good job since they were written.

Try reading - Can guns save you from suppression?’ http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253937

If it is the judiciary the police and the army they haven’t been that good themselves and actually cost a hell of a lot of money.

As to regulation, people have rights but if they break the law those rights can be taken away – in other words they are regulated.

**

 

I understand your point. However ther is still no other example of a currently constitutionally guaranteed right that imposes any sort of insuranse or tax on the people to be maintained. So why is the second amendment any different?

 

Another interesting question goes out to all those who say the second amendment addresses GROUP rights as opposed to INDIVIDUAL rights.


If all the other major rights recognized by the constitution address INDIVIDUALS' rights, on what grounds can you say that the second amendment addresses only GROUP rights? Many people love to go around saying "well the 2nd amendment was only written to establish a militia, not so that EVERYONE can own guns!". But how can this be if every other right that you cling to is designed to protect each and every individual?

 

To me, the right to defend one's person and home is absolute, and protected by the Ninth.

 

I think many of the current regulations could be short circuited if we all stood up against unreasonable search and seizure. Fourth admendment, anyone remember it? It was established to protect us from many of the things that lead to our revolution.

I don't remember releasing my rights to this protection.