Aside from the Second Amendment, what are the logically and evidence-supported arguments for uninfringed firearm possession?

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:22:55 -0400

Response by SPC Jeremy Gardner made Jun 30 at 2017 5:34 PM

SPC Jeremy Gardner — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:34:49 -0400

Interesting question and very thought provoking. The only thing I can really say, without evidence on hand, is that criminals can attack at anytime and place. If you live in a state like California, where you have a mostly disarmed populous, they honest hard work citizens have no defense because the police cannot be present 24/7 for all criminal activity that happens. In Utah, its much easier to get a CFP (Concealed Firearms Permit) and you don't see blood in the streets from the legal citizens. Its still the criminals that offer up the majority of the violence and in Utah, you never know who is armed. Criminals are cowards, and someone intent on harming lots of people, prefer to do it in an environment of their choosing, where getting shot back at is at a minimal.

For my supporting evidence, the theatre shooting in Colorado, Sandy Hook, the Pulse Nightclub. All of these are locations where gun free zones were established. Gun laws will stop a law abiding citizen that does not want to be arrested. They will never stop a criminal. Being able to defend yourself, as you are the first responder in an incident you are involved in, is not a hard thing to understand, at least not for me.

Response by Cpl Armando Mireles made Jun 30 at 2017 5:44 PM

Cpl Armando Mireles — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:44:13 -0400

One of the biggest arguments and evidence are those countries such as Mexico who do not allow citizens the right to carry arms, while the bad guys (cartels) have all the firepower and better equipped than their arm services.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jun 30 at 2017 6:33 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 18:33:55 -0400

Unfringed? That's a strange choice of words...however, I'll answer your question by sending you to another of our Constitutional Amendments. The 18th Amendment, which prohibited the production, transport, and sale of alcohol within the United States. It didn't work and neither has, does, or would the banning guns in America. You might ask why? Because criminals do not obey laws! Take away guns and you take away the means of defense by the weak over the strong and the immoral. Of course most Americans are not criminals so when you take away their guns you make them easy prey. On a side note the NRA started out defending the rights of black Americans in the South to own guns so they could protect themselves from the KKK (it's true...you can look it up).

You might then want to argue that if we could magically remove all guns from America, things would be better. But that's not true either. Look at England where their death by violence rates went up dramatically after banning guns. The criminals just changed weapons. I'm not even going to mention the ongoing disaster that America's big cities have become after enacting strict gun control on their law abiding citizens. Remember that criminals don't care about obeying gun control laws, they just want to take what you have and sometimes all they want is to hurt you and your family.

Response by SFC Mark Biggs made Jun 30 at 2017 6:50 PM

SFC Mark Biggs — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 18:50:20 -0400

The concept of Militia began in America in the 16oos. The Militia in each English colony included every able-bodied male aged 16-45. Every member was responsible to provide his own weapons, which originally included a matchlock musket and a sword. As firearm development continued, matchlock muskets turned into flintlock muskets, and then flintlock rifles, followed by percussion muskets and percussion rifles. These firearms advancements can be traced through the purchases of firearms by the British Army, the Continental Army, and the U.S. Army. The militia in the British colonies in North America were typically armed with similar, if not identical firearms as the British Army. By the time of the American Revolution, the common soldiers in the militias and the British Army were armed with the "Brown Bess" musket. After the Revolution, the concept of Militia continued and the Militia Act of 1792 called for all members of the Militia in each state to be issued a long arm at Federal expense. It was SOP to arm the militiamen with the same weapons that the Regular Army soldiers carried. This concept of arming the militia with Army weapons continued throughout the 1800s as firearms development went through single shot rifles with paper cartridges, lever action carbines, to bolt action rifles. In the 1900s, both the militia and Regular Army were using the M1903 Springfield bolt action rifle during WWI until it was replaced by the M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle during WWII and the Korean War. The militia morphed into the Army National Guard after WWI, but the idea of the Militia did not change. Just because a person has never served in the uniformed services, including the National Guard, does not mean that there is no militia. Just like from the 1600s until WWI, the Militia includes all able-bodied men aged 16-45. Since there is no current mechanism for these people to be armed at government expense, they will need to provide their own weapons. It makes sense that these weapons be of the same quality as the current weapons issued to the military, not the muskets of 1792 as some have said that the 2nd Amendment refers to. I hope this has been helpful to this discussion. Any errors are my own.

Response by MSgt George Cater made Jun 30 at 2017 8:17 PM

MSgt George Cater — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 20:17:57 -0400

Many have given you well reasoned, researched reasons for firearm possession by the (law abiding) people. I believe many more will continue to do so. I agree with them and can add little. However, I am drawn to one quote by Thomas Jefferson. After you have read all the replies, read this quote, read it again.... then read it a third time. It summarizes the entire argument and anyone unwilling or unable to see it's truth is at heart a tyrant willing to impose their will over others.

Response by SGT Joseph Gunderson made Jun 30 at 2017 8:23 PM

SGT Joseph Gunderson — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 20:23:59 -0400

There doesn't need to be anything else. The constitution and its amendments are quite literally the legal gospel.

Response by Maj John Bell made Jun 30 at 2017 8:39 PM

Maj John Bell — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 20:39:46 -0400

I live in a rural county. Every law enforcement officer from any village or township in the county, and from all four surrounding townships is deputized within our county by a Mutual Aid Agreement. We also have at least one, but probably not more than two Michigan State Police on patrol within the county. Sounds like a lot of coverage... doesn't it? Home invasion in rural areas is a growing problem in northern Michigan. Still sound like a lot of coverage? (Please don't take this as snarkiness.)

According to our County Sheriff, unless the stars align perfectly, armed law enforcement response is probably 15-20 minutes out for almost 50% of the counties rural residents. If more than one major incident occurs simultaneously, bump the response time to 45-60 minutes, for the third incident. Urban gangs are already suspected of creating simultaneous non-arrest incidents to move response away from the real targets. If a third incident occurs, before the first two are resolved, all Law Enforcement Officers in the county are paged out and have pre-determined holding areas to which they report. Additionally, Law Enforcement in surrounding counties start to "lean in" on the active county.

I do not consider myself an apocalyptic, end of the world prepper loon. If the county Sheriff tells me and my wife that we need to be able to defend ourselves up to one hour, we listen. We are both armed at home. We conduct strategy sessions and walk-through defense against home invasion monthly. Those that we would invite into our home know to call 10 minutes out.

Most of the veterans that run in my social circles have similar plans.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jun 30 at 2017 11:51 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 23:51:23 -0400

It a money making thing.

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Jul 1 at 2017 1:00 AM

Maj Walter Kilar — Sat, 01 Jul 2017 01:00:17 -0400

Logically and evidence-supported arguments? In today's world? I have been using logic, evidence, and quotes from the Founding Fathers for years, and I never get anywhere. Good luck having this discussion out in public.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Jul 1 at 2017 1:24 AM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Sat, 01 Jul 2017 01:24:18 -0400

http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html

gun_genocide.html

New York Law School Journal Int'l & Comp. Law; Lethal Laws, by David B. Kopel

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2017 9:44 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Jul 2017 09:44:47 -0400

I had a conversation with my son the other day about this principle of freedom vs control. 2A is an excellent example of this but you can substitute Gov't health care which is hot in the news lately.
In a nutshell, it's hard to live with freedom. You have to have self control (Golden Rule) and expect the best (but be prepared for the worst) from other people. If you don't have enough self control, our laws provide a place where there is avery little freedom of action or personal choices. You will live in a place where they open and close all the doors for you and feed you 3 times a day. The less freedom you have, the fewer expectations of self control you have and the fewer options you have. In short, take away a person's options and you have taken away his freedom. That is my persuasive argument against most forms of governmental control. I think that PO3 Jason M. quotes support my overall position. The government is only there to protect the rights that are God given, not given by a king or president. The more the government infringes on that, the less freedom we have.

Response by Maj Marty Hogan made Jul 1 at 2017 10:28 AM

Maj Marty Hogan — Sat, 01 Jul 2017 10:28:08 -0400

Is anything more than that necessary?

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Jul 2 at 2017 9:28 AM

1SG Dennis Hicks — Sun, 02 Jul 2017 09:28:07 -0400

The only true argument is to protect yourself and your loved ones from those that could care less about following the laws and from those entitled elites that are above the laws and have forgotten their oaths. In the end when you place your well being into the hands of flawed human beings you take your chances.

Response by Capt Dwayne Conyers made Jul 2 at 2017 2:55 PM

Capt Dwayne Conyers — Sun, 02 Jul 2017 14:55:52 -0400

The bottom line, MAJ Bryan Zeski, is to make money by selling more guns.

Gun sales were at a peak during the Obama years. Now, profits are dropping.

In the colonial days, we didn't have the police forces (city, state, federal... and those agencies in between). Hence, the need for armed militias.

I like to hunt and would keep a weapon for recreational (and free food) purposes. To date, never needed for protection — especially with armed security in our building.

A buddy owns dozens of guns and still goes shopping for more. His right to do so.