Question for the board....

A place to talk about anything. Stocks, politics, or your neighbors who won't turn down that music.
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 19353
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Question for the board....

Postby Spence » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:19 pm

If the founding fathers didn't want the citizenry armed, if they only wanted organized militia having weapons, then why did they allow the citizens to be armed when they ruled? I think instead of trying to interpret what they meant when they wrote the second amendment, why don't we look at the example they left?
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
donovan
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 8303
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Question for the board....

Postby donovan » Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:12 am

Many buy into the "living document" argument regarding the constitution. That allows for revisionism. Absolutely there are issues that the founding fathers never anticipated, but a strict interpretation of the Constitution and a little debate and thought, in my opinion would resolve those issues.

The constitution can be changed, difficult to do for a reason. The courts should not change the it by judicial decision.

The main issue is the constitution is not a preventative document that makes everything deemed "wrong or bad" go away. It is guidelines for behavior and when violated legislation can be deemed unconstitutional.

We talk of states rights. The constitution did not promote states rights. The states decided what they wanted the federal government to do and the rest the states do what they desire.

I do not believe that the framers ever wanted the right of all citizens to bear arms and form militia if that was the decision. In the early days of the revolution, revolutionaries were denied that right by the British.

The question I have, is what do we do about all the gun violence? Taking guns away is no more effective than hiding the bottles from a alcoholic. What is the solution?
As I age it is hard to tell if I am inspired by reasoned passion or arthritic knees; most likely it is arthritic reasoning.

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 19353
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Re: Question for the board....

Postby Spence » Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:55 pm

I believe the constitution is a living document. But the argument I hear most often is the founding follows meant that guns only be used by a militia. I think because of what they allowed in their time that it is clear they meant for the citizenry to be armed. I also get tired of the hunting argument. The right to keep and bear arms in the constitution has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with the right of the citizens to protect themselves from an unruly government.

I believe gun violence is not a result of the right to legally own a weapon. I believe the gun violence rises from hopelessness of people. People who have jobs and can support their families are lots less likely to steal or resort to violence. I also believe that drugs are the cause of 90% of violent crime. The heroin epidemic in this county is out of control. Heroin is I a drug that even the drug culture of the 60's and 70's stayed away from for the most part.

I don't know the answer to the drug problem. I know several kids, from good homes, that have killed themselves with drugs. Their family's will never be the same because of their choices. It is very sad.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10262
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Re: Question for the board....

Postby Eric » Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:41 pm

Much of the gun crime is absolutely drug-driven. There are states where having a firearm is legal and they have lower levels of gun violence per capita than countries in Europe with tighter gun control. And then there are states that have much higher levels of gun crime than those in Europe. I don't think banning guns would solve the majority of the core problems. Besides, I say if you disarm a person that gets harmed in a robbery or an assault, then that is an injustice unto itself. I don't really look at this type of issue from a cost/benefit analysis, it's a matter of a person's rights.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 9-27

User avatar
Derek
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 5524
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:04 am
Location: Brooks, GA
Contact:

Re: Question for the board....

Postby Derek » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:38 pm

donovan wrote:Many buy into the "living document" argument regarding the constitution. That allows for revisionism. Absolutely there are issues that the founding fathers never anticipated, but a strict interpretation of the Constitution and a little debate and thought, in my opinion would resolve those issues.

The constitution can be changed, difficult to do for a reason. The courts should not change the it by judicial decision.

The main issue is the constitution is not a preventative document that makes everything deemed "wrong or bad" go away. It is guidelines for behavior and when violated legislation can be deemed unconstitutional.

We talk of states rights. The constitution did not promote states rights. The states decided what they wanted the federal government to do and the rest the states do what they desire.

I do not believe that the framers ever wanted the right of all citizens to bear arms and form militia if that was the decision. In the early days of the revolution, revolutionaries were denied that right by the British.

The question I have, is what do we do about all the gun violence? Taking guns away is no more effective than hiding the bottles from a alcoholic. What is the solution?



You pretty much just said what I would have. 8) 8)
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.

The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.

- John Madden

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 19353
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Re: Question for the board....

Postby Spence » Fri May 02, 2014 6:33 am

It's too bad the states have sold their influence to the federal government.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
donovan
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 8303
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Question for the board....

Postby donovan » Fri May 02, 2014 9:23 am

Spence wrote:It's too bad the states have sold their influence to the federal government.


Yes it is...but in fact it is "We the People" that have given up our individual responsibilities to government. Patrick Henry said it best. True this was over the Stamp Act of 1775, but the issue was Britain making laws without the voice of the people. We have done the same to the Federal Government, we sold our freedom for promises of entitlements.

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
As I age it is hard to tell if I am inspired by reasoned passion or arthritic knees; most likely it is arthritic reasoning.

User avatar
Derek
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 5524
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:04 am
Location: Brooks, GA
Contact:

Re: Question for the board....

Postby Derek » Fri May 02, 2014 3:42 pm

donovan wrote:
Spence wrote:It's too bad the states have sold their influence to the federal government.


Yes it is...but in fact it is "We the People" that have given up our individual responsibilities to government. Patrick Henry said it best. True this was over the Stamp Act of 1775, but the issue was Britain making laws without the voice of the people. We have done the same to the Federal Government, we sold our freedom for promises of entitlements.

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"


Good Lord above those men were smarter than us!!!!!!
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.

The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.

- John Madden

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 19353
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Re: Question for the board....

Postby Spence » Fri May 02, 2014 9:00 pm

Unfortunately we are living in the final days of this democratic experiment. After 200+ years we have forgotten what freedom really is.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

billybud
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 9948
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:25 pm

Re: Question for the board....

Postby billybud » Wed May 28, 2014 9:18 am

Spence wrote:If the founding fathers didn't want the citizenry armed, if they only wanted organized militia having weapons, then why did they allow the citizens to be armed when they ruled? I think instead of trying to interpret what they meant when they wrote the second amendment, why don't we look at the example they left?


Spence...The times were a little different.

On the then frontier America, militias were quickly formed from residents to oppose marauding indians...to march to New Orleans to oppose the invading British, etc....in the place of a large standing army, locals would band together for armed protection. Jackson marched on New Orleans with the citizen Militia of Tennessee. Americans had a tradition of having citizens leave their homes and band together to defend rather than the european model of conscription and large armies.


Citizens built fortified positions on the frontier. eg..The oldest brick house in Tallahassee still has gun loupes in the walls to fire from.

Same thought out west....instead of a large police force, an armed posse would be organized where local citizens would band together to chase and apprehend or kill law breakers.
Some light is so intense that it can only be experienced as darkness

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 19353
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Re: Question for the board....

Postby Spence » Wed May 28, 2014 8:21 pm

Times were different, but the intent of the founding fathers was clear. The second amendment was to protect the citizens from an unruly government. If they had not felt that way, they would have limited the citizen's right to protect themselves at the time.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

billybud
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 9948
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:25 pm

Re: Question for the board....

Postby billybud » Thu May 29, 2014 7:45 pm

Oh..ok

Sure, the drafters of the time were worried about tyranny and citizens being at the mercy of an army if they were unarmed....after all, they were in the process of rebelling against the tyrant George III and fighting an occupying "foreign" army. Tyranny was the bogeyman of the time in a century where tyrants still ruled most of Europe.

Us southerners all lost ancestor patriots who stood up to the invading armies of the North in the War of Yankee Aggression. And many of us are armed. In fact, I was out two nights ago at 2 am with my 12 gauge (00 buck home defense shells) after my drive way alert alarmed in the cabin...danged coyote tripped the infra red.

Custer found out that when insurgents outgun army troopers things do not go well. And the British and Russians, along with the US, have found out that armed citizens in Afghanistan are a tough foe.

But...something has to be done....gun violence in our cities, armed gangs, kids with guns in their waist bands....I think I might have been safer living in Tombstone in 1881 with the Earps and Clantons at war.

Do we need to balance the very slight probability of armed citizens resisting an invading army (Red Dawn type fantasy excepted) or the need for armed resistance against an American tyrant, against gun killing and violence?

Our firearm deaths per capita are 8X or more than that of the UK, Sweden, Australia, Belgium, Poland, Spain, etc...our gun caused deaths per capita are just a tad lower then Mexico's.
Some light is so intense that it can only be experienced as darkness

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 19353
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Re: Question for the board....

Postby Spence » Thu May 29, 2014 10:00 pm

I agree something needs done. I would just go in the other direction. I believe that the more people that are armed the less likely you will have mass killings. In the big picture history tells us that the guy with the biggest stick is the guy that controls the peace. Also history tells us that people how have jobs and can take care of their family are less likely to be criminals. Jobs solve lots of societies problems. Guns are neither the problem nor the solution.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

billybud
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 9948
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:25 pm

Re: Question for the board....

Postby billybud » Fri May 30, 2014 5:51 pm

Yeah right...arming more citizens is the answer...

1...the US has more guns per capita than any other country...almost twice that of most...even the #2 country (Serbia) isn't close...they would have to have over 50% more guns per capita to reach the US per capita figure.

2...Yeah, a vigilante may blast a couple of guys on the subway or do a Zimmerman...but really, armed citizens prevent very few gun deaths. And we already have more armed citizens then anybody.

The answer is one that we know...but do not know how to implement. We need to get guns off of the streets and prevent guns from reaching the streets...but how?
Some light is so intense that it can only be experienced as darkness

User avatar
donovan
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 8303
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Question for the board....

Postby donovan » Sat May 31, 2014 2:07 pm

Gun control or non control is not the answer. Reminds me of the story of the town that was built on a cliff. People were falling off the cliff. Half the town wanted to build a fence and the other half put an ambulance in the valley.

The problem with guns is the allow horrific violence with a certain amount of anonymity. A lot like the trash on the internet. Shooting a person from a long distance, seems to me is different from beating someone with a baseball bat or golf club.

I am opposed to gun control. As Mr. Billybud stated, though we may be on different sides of this question, there has been not reasonable way to implement it. In the end, we want to live in a civil nation, where the motivation for violence is lessened. We justify all kinds of violent exposure on every imaginable basis in existence. Movies, TV, games, sports, (what the heck is this ultimate fighting) and the reporting of news.

We have become a nation of war mongers. There is not one major general in our history, that when asked did not declare the every soldier should be anti-war, though there are things worth fighting for, or words to that affect

Government is continuing to suppress private moral guidance in our workplace, government, schools and neighborhoods. I think that becomes the place to start.

.
As I age it is hard to tell if I am inspired by reasoned passion or arthritic knees; most likely it is arthritic reasoning.


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest