本帖最后由 brucewayne 于 2018-2-28 22:07 编辑
Gun control is only about making people defenseless. It’s the only goal. Science results showed many times more restrict gun control cannot cure the problems. I’m not saying there’s no evidence suggesting association of firearms and firearms related injuries or death, nor did I say the gun laws had no statistic significant effects. But more studies need to be conducted and firearms are not the only determine factors here. Also does the benefit from gun control outweigh the benefit of gun ownership? The sole purpose of the right of people to keep and bear arms is defense. I'll talk about this concept through out the article. Here I’ll show you why the so called common sense gun control serves the only goal to disarm you.
I’ll give you the reasons from these aspects. - Second amendment
- Self defense concept
- Firearms used in self defense and conflict with government
- High capacity magazine ban
- Assault rifle ban
- Semi automatic ban
- Tricks you don’t know in the common sense gun control bill.
- Media bias and lies.
- Look into the data of gun violence
There are many opinions about second amendment. Some people say the second amendment was not about self-defense. It's partially true about the "self" part, but the second amendment was absolutely about defense. I’m not a historian by any means and I would not try to interpret the second amendment lightly. I would recommend all of you to read the constitution and other documents by yourself to get a conclusion but not just from media or one expert. So, let’s begin with the second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist No. 29 titled Concerning the Militia: "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution.... To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss... To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. “ “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
Hamilton carefully laid out the importance for having a militia in order to defend a free state and pointed out all the people should be the force of militia. It is unrealistic to organize and train all the people as nowadays “national guards”, so people would just properly armed and equipped instead. Therefore, the second amendment states: ” For maintain the security of a free State, a well-regulated militia is important. For this reason, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The definition of well-regulated militia was not defined at that time, but one can argue based on the article, it would be any armed American citizens who are willing to fight for a free state and appointed by the state government.
In Federalist 46, Hamilton further demonstrated the connection between the militia and the right to bear arms: “It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition,more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." Clearly, the right of the people to keep and bearing arms is the foundation and prerequisite of militia not the other way around. And this right is crucial for defending the America as a free country. Therefore, the notion that you need to join military or national guard in order to have the right to bear arms is not supported by the constitution.
People against the second amendment always argue that you can’t protect yourselves from government by using firearms. It maybe true for individuals, but if you exam it in the context of the militia background. It is quite similar to the situation in the Middle East where fighter jets, tanks or missiles can't defeat rifles easily. In addition, many people think tyrannous government would never emerge and never confiscate peoples’ guns. However, the gun control legislation history is actually filled with racism and white supremacy. In fact, the 18th-century regulations prohibited blacks and Indians from participating militia as arms-bearing members. After the Confederate was defeated in 1865, Frederick Douglass asked federal action to stop state and local infringement of the right to arms. Until this was accomplished, Douglass argued, “the work of the abolitionists is not finished.” Indeed, freedmen in some southern states “were forbidden to own or bear firearms, and thus were rendered defenseless against assault.” Even after the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868, which made the Second Amendment applicable to the states and gun control laws had to be racially neutral, states still found way to draft new discriminatory policies.Tennessee and Arkansas only allowed expensive ex-Confederate officer-owned handguns. Ida B. Wells, the leading journalist opposing lynching, documented cases in Kentucky and Florida, “where the men armed themselves” and fended off lynch mobs. “The lesson this teaches,” Wells wrote, “is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.” In 1906 Atlanta riot, 1919 Chicago race riot and 1921 Tulsa race riot, blacks fought back with firearms when the mobs invaded their neighborhoods and police stood idle. There would have been more devastation had blacks not fought back, killing some of their attackers. The list goes on and on.
Firearms also played major role in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The Deacons for Defense and Justice, founded in 1965, with .38 Special revolvers and M1carbines, they deterred terrorism in the “Klan country” region of Louisiana and Mississippi. When Dr. King led the “Meredith March against Fear” for voter registration in Mississippi, the Deacons provided armed security. Had the civil rights workers’ guns been registered, they could have been confiscated, rendering the community defenseless.
The 2010 McDonald v. Chicago case was a milestone of the second amendment right. The ruling found the gun right is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment against the states. Even today, in the most violent neighborhood of some cities, people of color are still disproportionately rendered defenseless by the most strict gun controls of the nation, as in Chicago today.
| 
发表于 2018-2-28 15:30
收藏
提升卡
变色卡
千斤顶
楼主
发表于 2018-2-28 16:16
。 在日常生活里， 自卫的枪， 是当作“保险”有备无患的东西。 更经常能用到的恐怕还是防卫以外的其它用途。