[steansathtpos]

It would appear that no American should be allowed to own a gun unless they have undergone rigorous military training which would classify them as 'well regulated' in the sense that was intended at the time. Your comment about training 'not necessarily' being required would seem to be directly contradicted by Hamilton.

There is the problem that Alexander Hamilton wasn't in Congress when the 2nd Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was drafted and passed (he was Secretary of the Treasury at the time).

[offemyJuccete]

There is the problem that Alexander Hamilton wasn't in Congress when the 2nd Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was drafted and passed (he was Secretary of the Treasury at the time).

Ah come on now, being in a different branch of goverment would lead to phrases having radically different meanings? There were clearly discussions about this topic going on in many places.

No proper study has been done on the likelihood of being killed with a gun based on gun ownership. Studies which have been done typically fail to take into account that many gun owners purchase their firearms because they know that they are likely to be attacked. For instance, people who hold restraining orders against others or live in dangerous areas are likely to seek weapons for personal protection.

So what you actually mean is 'There have been studies done, but because they contradict my position I will ignore them'.

[Wavgbtif]

Considering that Hamilton was not involved in drafting or passing the legislation his interpretation is as valid as any learned person during the era. But should not be counted as any part of original intent. Secondly, he's one person and wasn't the only person who interpreted the Amendment - why is his view controlling (that goes to the problem of original intent analysis in the first place).

Do we have some contradictory definitions by prominent contemporary figures?

[JessiPollo]

I'll have a read. To be fair though I think it's a pretty daft thing anyway. Surely the needs of the America of today are a lot more relevant than the precise wording of something written hundreds of years ago.

[ErubTiereedig]

There is an amendment procedure for that - if enough people agree. Personally I have no issue with individual ownership of guns - I would just like to see them licensed and regulated better.

[Aluback]

I'll have a read. To be fair though I think it's a pretty daft thing anyway. Surely the needs of the America of today are a lot more relevant than the precise wording of something written hundreds of years ago.

Which is why the constitution can be amended.

[Hrennilasi]

I'm guessing illegal guns generally start their lives as legal guns.

[GECEDEANY]

There are many like me, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for exercise of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%). Do we have to go over this again? The infamous study done by Kleck claimed that Americans defended themselves by brandishing a gun 2.5 million times / year in the late 1980's - early 1990's. The study also rported that in 25% of these incidents the defender fired his weapon and 40% claimed to have hit the "perp". A little light math shows that, if the claims of the study were true, there ought to have been about 250,000 people wounded or killed annually by gun toting defenders. From that many gun shot victims one sould expect at the absolute minimum over 40,000 fatalities. The problem is that that was a fairly easy statistic to check up on, physicians and hospitals are legally required to report gunshot wounds. Published medical statistics showed that the number of people suffering gun wounds or fatalities not in the suicide, homicide, or assault categories was no where near those numbers. members of the medical community confronted Kleck about this discrepancy. Kleck offered the suggestion that there was a giant conspiracy of physicians treating wounded criminals sub rosa.

[everlastinge]

I was under the impression that that number (2.5 million) also included brandishings that did not result in shooting. That would at lease make that number possible, albeit still implausible.

edit: never mind I see how it's impossible.

The obvious solution to the conundrum is that they really didn't hit the perp.

[Snweyuag]

Do we have to go over this again? The infamous study done by Kleck claimed that Americans defended themselves by brandishing a gun 2.5 million times / year in the late 1980's - early 1990's. The study also rported that in 25% of these incidents the defender fired his weapon and 40% claimed to have hit the "perp". A little light math shows that, if the claims of the study were true, there ought to have been about 250,000 people wounded or killed annually by gun toting defenders. From that many gun shot victims one sould expect at the absolute minimum over 40,000 fatalities. The problem is that that was a fairly easy statistic to check up on, physicians and hospitals are legally required to report gunshot wounds. Published medical statistics showed that the number of people suffering gun wounds or fatalities not in the suicide, homicide, or assault categories was no where near those numbers. members of the medical community confronted Kleck about this discrepancy. Kleck offered the suggestion that there was a giant conspiracy of physicians treating wounded criminals sub rosa.

Why do so many conservatives buy into conspiracy theories whole sale? You brought up just one example but the thread title is another ("Da UN's black helecopters are coming for my guns!!!1111!!!ONE!11"), another one is Glenn Beck's "Agenda 21" nonsense which he's currently peddling, climate science denial is another ("Tens of thousands of scientists and government officials are all in a secret plot lasting decades because... Uh... Well... Because they want grant money?"), and don't even get me started on their whole nonsense surrounding creationism and evolution.

Edit: Oh, and let's not forget the whole anti-Fed gold nut nonsense which often even involves supposedly vast secret Jewish conspiracy groups who have secretly controlled the world for the last century or two.

[Boripiomi]

Which is exactly what we all told Strangelove last time, but he loves citing pointless statistics to justify his statism.

Guns are demonized by a bunch of uptight fools who know nothing about them. That fact though, is that guns are perfectly safe when maintained and used properly. Accidental deaths are vanishingly rare, approximately one per 300,000 firearms in private hands annually. To put that in perspective, household swimming pools are thirteen times more likely to cause an accidental death than firearms. But nobody seems to think there should be licensing for getting a home swimming pool.

I read that part of Freakonomics

[DumbNelmcrece]

Which is an entirely different topic than the one I brought up. BTW the points I raised are factual, not strawmen, so either address them or don't respond to the post with non sequitur.

[freeprescriptionplanrrx]

Wow, someone sticking up for me. TBF though:

another one is Glenn Beck's "Agenda 21" nonsense which he's currently peddling Agenda 21 is a reality. Dunno what you're smoking but there are a ton of people who are involved in population control.

climate science denial is another One, it's not secret. Two, yes, global warming is a theory which lacks confirmation or any scientific evidence and has already been caught falsifing data.

their whole nonsense surrounding creationism and evolution. Sheesh. None of these things are a conspiracy. Go look up Dewey and get back to me and tell me that this hasn't been the plot for education for over 75 years now.

Is it sad that Oerdin can't find an actual example of a conspiracy theory? I mean look at the 9-11 truthers. I wonder if Oerdin considers them a conspiracy theorist since they believe that Bush brought down the towers himself. Oerdin probably doesn't consider that a conspiracy since that's what he does believe.

[XVzrlWIv]

You went on a rant about a group of conservatives which you allege exists (though I've never met anyone from it) but is not represented on this forum, not even by Ben Kenobi.

Anyway don't go on about how conservative people espouse conspiracy theories because we've had a fair number of left wing conspiracy theories cross this board. Including one today by kentonio about going to Iraq to make Haliburton rich. The conspiracy theory syndrome is not unique to any one group of the political spectrum. It exists everywhere.

No, it's just too easy to write off anything you don't like as a conspiracy theory. Read Hitchens 'The Trial of Henry Kissinger' and then come back and talk to me about conspiracy theories.