2nd AM Argument/Brady Bunch

[82ndtrooper]

Here's a nice argument for the Brady Bunch.


As most all 2nd Amendment active people know, when an anti-gun person says something, it is usually an exaggeration, or it contains some hidden methodology that the American public would not normally associate with their wording, or it is just flat out wrong. So when I came across an interview with The Brady Campaign’s Paul Helmke, I read it and asked myself, “Which of those three choices is this?”

Yes, every American deplores unnecessary deaths. This includes deaths caused by firearms. Gun owners are no different in this regard and we all should work to limit such tragedies as much as we possibly can. However, let’s do the hard work of making society and our families safer in an honest way that respects the Constitution. Take for instance question 2 that was asked during Mr. Helmke’s interview:
Question 2: What do you see as the most worrisome trends in gun laws?

Answer. The argument that worries me the most is that somehow we’d all be safer if nearly anyone, anytime and anywhere had a gun. Whether we’re talking homes, states or countries, more guns almost always means more deaths and more injuries. “Pushing” guns may be great financially for gun manufacturers, dealers and related businesses, but it does not make us safer. [b] Accidental shooting deaths, suicides and homicides, as well as non-fatal injuries, all increase when there are more guns.
Wow. That is quite a bold and damaging statement… if it were actually true. According to the FBI’s NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM (NICS) -- January 2006 report, we can discover that an average of more than eight million firearms are were transferred each year from 1999 to 2005. If Mr. Helmke is correct, the United States are enduring an overwhelming epidemic of crime and gun deaths that increases proportionally with the eight million firearms transferred each year. We know that isn’t true. Therefore, let’s examine Mr. Helmke’s claims one by one to see if any of them hold water.

Accidental shooting deaths – According to the NRA, Today's Gun Accident Rates Lowest On Record. “Among children, fatal firearm accidents have decreased 91 percent since 1975, according to studies by the National Center for Health Statistics and the National Safety Council.”

Also weighing in on this subject is John Lott, who has researched the safe storage laws being passed in fifteen states. He said in his paper entitled, “Safe Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime” that there is no supporting evidence that shows safe storage laws reduce either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides. Instead, these storage requirements appear to impair people’s ability to use guns defensively. Because accidental shooters also tend to be the ones most likely to violate the new law, safe storage laws increase violent and property crimes against low risk citizens with no observable offsetting benefit in terms of reduced accidents or suicides.

During the first five years after the passage of the safe storage laws, the group of fifteen states that adopted these laws faced an annual average increase of over 300 more murders, 3,860 more rapes, 24,650 more robberies, and over 25,000 more aggravated assaults. On average, the annual costs borne by victims averaged over $2.6 billion as a result of lost productivity, out-of-pocket expenses, medical bills, and property losses.

Perhaps Mr. Helmke meant hunting accidents. According to Outdoors editor Phil Bloom of Fortwayne.com (the same paper that did the interview with Mr. Helmke) Hunting accidents on decline -- Statistics show sport is safer than boating. “Accidents are on the decline, not only in Indiana but also nationally, according to the International Hunter Education Association, a Colorado-based organization that collects state-by-state data and reports that hunting-related accidents are 30 percent below what they were a decade ago.

Fatalities attributed to hunting accidents have dropped from more than 200 nationally in 1987 to fewer than 100 annually from 1996 through 2002, the most recent year for which IHEA has a complete report.”

Mr. Helmke next mentioned Suicide. According to a Harvard University study, although they find that firearms are one of the most effective means of suicide, the rates have remained stable for the past fifty years despite the fact that eight million transfers of firearms a year occurred. Researchers link firearms, suicide rate -- Suicide rates in the U.S. have remained steady for past 50 years.

Next Mr. Helmke mentions Homicides. Not all homicides are murder. In this data, there is a group called justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide is when a citizen or a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) uses a firearm to save their life or someone else’s life. These figures are erroneously included.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) at the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) website, gun-involved incidents increased sharply in the late 1980's and early 1990's before falling to a low in 1999. In looking at the figures, we discover that homicides reached a peak in 1993. Comparing that peak to the last available figure for 2004, the U.S. experienced a drop of 38% in firearm related homicides. All of this while the U.S. sale and or transfer of firearms are averaging a whopping 8 million per year.

Looking at the available figures, we also were able to discover that even the number of justifiable homicides dropped using the same base years of 1993 and 2004. There were 357 citizen justifiable shootings and 455 LEO shootings in 1993, compared to 2004 when there were 219 citizen justifiable shootings and 368 LEO shootings. Not bad considering the fact that this drop occurred during a time when Concealed Carry initiatives were gaining in popularity. For more information on justifiable homicides, see the USDOJ website webpage titled Homicide trends in the U.S. justifiable homicides.

Finally, Mr. Helmke mentions Non-fatal injuries. According to the (USDOJ) webpage entitled Firearms and Crime Statistics, the section titled Injury says: ”From 1993 through 1997, less than 1% of serious nonfatal violent victimizations resulted in gunshot wounds… the number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.”

After an examination of the available data cited throughout this article, one must conclude that, of the three choices I first presented, Mr. Helmke is just flat out wrong in his answer of question 2 presented during his interview. However, you probably already knew that when you first read it.

[NousDefionsDoc]

doctors kill three times as many people a year as firearms do

I think you'll want to rephrase that. Something along the lines of "medical negligence" perhaps.

[longrange1947]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

I think you'll want to rephrase that. Something along the lines of "medical negligence" perhaps.

NDD, I think they like to call it "Medical Misadventure".

Negligence is such a nasty word.

[Kyobanim]

Originally Posted by longrange1947

NDD, I think they like to call it "Medical Misadventure".

I thought that was reserved for 2 different sized implants?

[longrange1947]

Originally Posted by Kyobanim

I thought that was reserved for 2 different sized implants?

Crap, another lost cup of coffee through the nose.

[82ndtrooper]

I've never been under the impression that the 2AM and Assualt Rifles (whatever the really means) is something that the far left gun grabbers are willing to negotiate. In 1994 the AWB that was signed into law restricting certain firearms from being sold was championed as on the largest and most successful movements towards more gun control. Lets take a look at the AWB as it stood for 10 years.

1. Rifles that were semi automatic with a box fed magazine. This included the AK-47 and most other "Spooky" looking rifles.

2. Limitations to pistol magazines restricting the public to a 10 round mag, not the standard capacity that was allowed to LEO and Military.

In a nutshell, that's it !!! Yes, there were other firearms on the AWB list, mainly those that had no "Sporting purpose" Of course the "Sporting Purpose" was defined by those that have never fired a rifle, shotgun, or pistol. This in of its self is bewildering since I personally find the use of my WASR-10 as "Sporting" when I fire at paper targets for accuracy. Arguably a nice rifle for competitive shooting. This would fall under the "Sporting Purpose"

The Tec-Nine was among those listed also. Merely a 9mm pistol that had the appearance of a small sub-gun. Since it was more "Spooky" looking than a standard 9mm semi auto handgun it made the list. I guess they missed the 9mm Beretta, SIG, H&K, and Glock semi auto 9mm Lugers. At the President Clinton library there is an AK-47 in a case on display as if it were evil. Shortly after the AWB was in effect two well armed bank robbers with full auto AK-47's changed the face of the LAPD when they had to borrow AR's from a local gun shop/FFL Now almost every squad car in the U.S. has an AR 5.56 sported in the front seat. I guess those two guy's didn't get the message that is was illegal to own such firarms. Proof again that restrictive gun laws have no effect on crime. Where's a willing there's a way !!

The AR15 and AR10 remained open for sale and transfer with a 10 round mag and semi auto feature. I guess it wasn't spooky enough looking since our own military use the AR platform as a standard long bow.

Do not for one moment relax with your Consitution in hand as you sip coffee in the morning. The Democrats are planning another national AWB of some sorts, but not in the next two years. They are clever enough to wait till a Democratic president has taken the oath of office before that bill goes to the senate floor. It's coming, it's just a matter of time. Also on the agenda is the repeal of the state by state CCW privilege. CCW permits will be on a "Show need" basis. In other words, you'll have to prove to a higher body that you are being, have been and will be attacked by an evil person. In other words, you'll have to have been hospitalized for injuries sustained by a person who has continualy harrassed and threatened you. It may too late, your hospital stay may be only in the morg. You get the point. "Prove to us that you need a gun" The Constitution as it stands has no provision for "Proof" of need.

Do not under any circumstances take the 2AM as gospil. It is being infringed by many states and municipalities. If you do not think so, look into the restrictive gun laws of Washingtion D.C., California, New York, Chicago and Detroit to name a few.

On a somewhat humorus note I witnessed a drug raid on the show "Detroit SWAT" When the aleged drug dealer was found to have a Ruger 30_06 1077 bolt action rifle with Leopold Hunting scope, it was quickly dubbed as a "Sniper Rifle" Evn though the rifle had not been used during the raid. Even in some LEO circles there seems to be certain distaste for the 2AM. Not all, but some, perhaps many. I'd hate to see what would happen if a real "Sniper Rifle" were to actually be found. Point being that any rifle, handgun and shogun can be classified as an "Assault Weapon" if it's used in the commission of crime. Last time I checked I was well within my rights to own a Barrett .50 Cal should I be inclined to do so. Although It will not be used for criminal purposes. Merely for "Sporting Purpose" Of course in Cali, it's considered of being capable of shooting down commercial aircraft. Hence their eve so quick and glazed over move to ban the sale of yet another high powered rifle.

[stakk4]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Democrats...unless they were flat-out lying about that.

Politicians lie?

[82ndtrooper]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Since the AWB was revoked, wouldn't the Dems risk getting themselves voted out of office and losing the Congress if they pass another AWB? The people want their assault weapons. Also many of the Democrats voted into Congress this time are pro-Second Amendment, unless they were flat-out lying about that. I hope they were telling the truth.

Washington, D.C. lawyers have ruled that the 2nd Amendment refers to the militia.

EDIT: Upon further reading, I see the AWB expired in 2004. For some reason, I thought it had been revoked by pressure from the people.

You have some good points and bad points. First, the Democrats that seem to be heavy handed with the gavel for the 2AM are the same ones with the most influence on the hill. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Shumer, Dianne Fienstien, Kennedy (Booze Hound) and others. Dianne Fienstein herself is solely responsible for the ban on handguns in the city of San Francisco, Cali. Although she has her own concealed carry permit and owns a .357 S&W !!! The rules do not apply to her. She like many other "Elitist" are dellusional enough to believe they have a legitimate right to the 2AM and you and I do not !!!

Second. The 2AM is written is as such "A well regulated militia, (and) the right of the people to keep and bear arms" The comma, grammatically speaking, has alway's meant to insert the word "AND" Hence the right of the "PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms. The Leftist have attempted to no avail to try to perform an autopsy on the wording to fit their agenda. NOTE: Recent 500 page book titled "A well regulated Militia" 500 pages to disect a two sentence amendment to the CONUS.

[82ndtrooper]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

The forefathers should've re-wrote the 2nd AM to say something, in addition to the militia, about "the right of the individual person, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

They did !! "Militia and People"......................it seems simple enough to me.

[82ndtrooper]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

True; I just meant maybe making the language where they can't try to twist it like they do. If it literally had the words, "right of the individual person to keep and bear arms," then lawyers and politicians, like the ones in D.C. and elsewhere, would have no way I would think to say the 2nd AM refers only to the militia like they do.

In a perfect world, all the AM's to the CONUS would NOT BE argued for validity as they are written. We do not live in that world.

The disection and autopsy of the 2AM by leftist gun grabbing pundits is merely the democratic way of attacking that to which they do not like. it's no surprise that the "Wording" of the 2AM would come under scrutiny by leftist liberal gun grabbers and like minded sheep. After all, if the newly elected senate and congress have taken an oath to protect the CONUS, then all bets are off. Unfortunatley this is not the case. The left will only swear to uphold the CONUS in the form that they see fit for their agenda.

Like minded liberal democrats fought tooth and nail with the current administration in the recent wire tapping scandal by the NSA and intel agencies. All under the disguise of "Constitutional Grounds" That being the 4th AM. At the same time, they are trying desperatley to infringe your other rights. Today they are even attacking the 1st AM that has won them their seats. How exactly are they doing this ? Let me explain. Nancy Pelosi has recommended that any organization with 500 members or more is given a "Grass Roots" intiative title. You got it !! Even this board and forum, if in the eyes of the liberals does not serve their purpose, it would require us to submit all the members names and addresses.


We are currently living a dangerous world, and I do not mean just Islamic Jihad, but rather our own Jihad to the CONUS and that which it stands for.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Since the AWB was revoked, wouldn't the Dems risk getting themselves voted out of office and losing the Congress if they pass another AWB? The people want their assault weapons. Also many of the Democrats voted into Congress this time are pro-Second Amendment, unless they were flat-out lying about that. I hope they were telling the truth.

Washington, D.C. lawyers have ruled that the 2nd Amendment refers to the militia.

EDIT: Upon further reading, I see the AWB expired in 2004. For some reason, I thought it had been revoked by pressure from the people.

Broadsword, you have made several errors today, and are detracting from the quality of this board.

Stop posting for a week.

When you start again, think before typing, and do research first if you need to.

TR

[Kyobanim]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

The forefathers should've re-wrote the 2nd AM to say something, in addition to the militia, about "the right of the individual person, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

When it was written, it was written for the times. They wrote it to say what they wanted. That includes punctuation and grammar. Now, over 200 years later, society has changed and more importantly, the way things are said have changed. That's just the way it is.

People today are taking the words of the Constitution and trying to apply them literally to todays' society meanings and standards. And if it was re-written today, in another 200+ years that population would be going through the same thing.

This probably didn't come out the way I wanted it too so I'll just have another beer and go to bed.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Kyobanim

When it was written, it was written for the times. They wrote it to say what they wanted. That includes punctuation and grammar. Now, over 200 years later, society has changed and more importantly, the way things are said have changed. That's just the way it is.

People today are taking the words of the Constitution and trying to apply them literally to todays' society meanings and standards. And if it was re-written today, in another 200+ years that population would be going through the same thing.

This probably didn't come out the way I wanted it too so I'll just have another beer and go to bed.

If we are strict originalists, should the freedom of the press (literally a printing machine) extend to electronic media?

The Constitution doesn't say Jack about radio and TV, much less the internet.

Is it protected?

TR