tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520077770573448711.post2899809967781784996..comments2023-10-14T08:17:42.205-04:00Comments on The New Independent Whig: On a Well-Regulated MilitiaAgishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05297300559991439052noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520077770573448711.post-43690941654528860692013-01-21T23:49:57.654-05:002013-01-21T23:49:57.654-05:00You make legitimate points. I've been studying...You make legitimate points. I've been studying the history of gun rights and think there's more to say on the subject, so look for it in a future post. Agishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05297300559991439052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520077770573448711.post-5988758752649136342013-01-21T23:20:09.904-05:002013-01-21T23:20:09.904-05:00by that logic, it makes more sense that those of u...by that logic, it makes more sense that those of us who are not simply horrified by isolated, rare acts of insane people like at Newton, but go the next step and are irrationally frightened of it happening again, have little right to cause others to live in more immediate fear by interfering with their right to defend themselves against robberies, rapes, break ins, etc. via oppressive laws.<br />Spree murders are a stastical drop in the bucket compared to all other criminal acts.<br /><br />Additionally, i think you've misread Adams. He is clearly supporting civilian ownership of arms for self defense (as it exists today), as well as for organized responses to emergencies (something that is much rarer today, i.e. deputizing civilians). <br />What he is opposing is people with arms becoming laws unto themselves, i.e. self directed vigilante action and mob rule. He's saying that arms and the potential for lethal force without a system of laws governing when it's okay to wield them is anarchic, not that gun ownership itself needs to be legislated in any way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520077770573448711.post-60781403746634100432013-01-04T23:36:44.668-05:002013-01-04T23:36:44.668-05:00Thanks!
I'd respectfully suggest that the Fou...Thanks! <br />I'd respectfully suggest that the Founders' notion of "the people" was based on the understanding that Americans were civic minded and concerned about the public good. This ties in with the idea of a "Social Contract," in which a people agree to give up a portion of their freedom for the blessings of society. Thus, the right to own guns must be balanced against the right of Americans to feel safe from the horrors of wanton murder and theft. <br /><br />The state-level correlation between strict gun control laws and violence is easily attributable to state differences in population density. I will say, though, that urban states and rural states have very different values. In rural states, gun ownership means self-sufficiency: the ability to protect oneself, hunt for game, and kill coyotes that are devouring one's herd. In urban states, gun ownership means something else, I think.Agishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05297300559991439052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520077770573448711.post-37333311082822980362012-12-26T22:55:26.633-05:002012-12-26T22:55:26.633-05:00Interesting read the only thing that can be drawn ...Interesting read the only thing that can be drawn from this is private gun ownership is still allowed, but for private self defense. in other words we are not suppose to take our firearms meant for self defense to war. The federal government violated Constitutional law By sending the National Guard, as the author claims that the National Guard is the militia. to fight in a war over seas. That is the opinion of this writer of this article.<br />I see no anarchy on our society except in areas with strict gun bans. The places in the US with the highest crime rate and the highest gun violence are the places with the strictest gun laws in place. Your argument would still imply that "the people" would still apply to me as an individual as I am also part of the whole. In other words my right as part of "the people" shall not be infringed. BY the meaning you refer to above that means anyone who dose not vote is not part of "the people" So those who do not vote dose not have a second amendment right.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11297024374682128354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520077770573448711.post-89677833965836246992012-12-26T22:42:27.771-05:002012-12-26T22:42:27.771-05:00I do not see anarchy running rampant, but I do see...I do not see anarchy running rampant, but I do see plenty of law abiding citizens who own a firearm. He also made mention of Private citizens owning firearms for self defense. The only argument I could see being made is that private citizens are not meant to fight in wars with firearms owned for self defense. But it dose not ban them at all in any way,and actually ownership is approved by John Adams. It also makes the argument that the federal government has violated Constitutional law by sending the national guard to fight in foreign wars. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11297024374682128354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520077770573448711.post-52648909394728221322012-12-22T17:34:53.150-05:002012-12-22T17:34:53.150-05:00Hello!
"Myopic" seems a bit harsh, don&#...Hello!<br />"Myopic" seems a bit harsh, don't you think? But I welcome your comment. When the Founders used the phrase "the people," they did not mean it in the modern, individualistic sense of the term. The term was often used interchangeably with "the public interest." If you consult The Federalist, James Madison's use of the term "the people" clearly refers to a collective body of voters whose interests are represented by their respective state governments. And the quote in the post by John Adams places "the people" within a framework of law. Anything else is anarchy.Agishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05297300559991439052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3520077770573448711.post-89726775303971529032012-12-21T22:32:16.757-05:002012-12-21T22:32:16.757-05:00Very well thought out, but a bit myopic...The &quo...Very well thought out, but a bit myopic...The "well regulated militia" is referring to the people, not an organized group per se. So, the right of the people shall not be infringed.<br /><br />Source: http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com