10 7

Does the left actually believe with just 1 more gun control law we can solve this problem? They can never seem to explain how keeping law abiding people from guns is going to help in gun violence.

EdNason 7 Apr 4

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Sheep are attacked by wolves. Sheep only see the wolves teeth as dangerous. The sheep thereby remove their own teeth for safety. Sound familiar?


It's not about protecting innocents, It's about control over the masses. If ALL firearms were banned nation-wide there would still be crime, but it's not about crime. It's about control. Each new legislation, each small liberty taken away from the good, law-abiding public is a step closer to disarmament and government control. Much of the left actually want to be controlled. They see it as "protection". No guns, no violence. It's an absurd misunderstanding of human nature.


It's a head scratcher. My gut feeling tells me that it's a mixed bag on the gun control side. Some naively think that a gun ban means guns disappear and people are happy. They are too naive to realize criminals will continue to have guns and law abiding people will be made defenseless, they are too naive to understand that governments take turns for the worst and an armed population is a deterrent (may not save the day, but it does deter violence) despite our last president literally murdering American citizens without charge or trial and making it legal for the military to repeat to us what FDR did to Japanese Americans and despite the current president, so I've heard, being the "next Hitler."

But I think for many and the most vocal, they don't actually care about safety or making anything better. They are simply so filled with hate for the conservative caricature they have created and maintained and shared amongst themselves, that they know banning guns would be a huge blow to those they hate. I don't think it goes any further than that. In my state of Washington "we" recently passed a law that bans more guns and makes it so 18-20 year olds can have guns and die in the military and can vote, but can't purchase weapons to defend themselves and their families. I have seen neighbors who rabidly supported this then victory chant and waste no time telling conservatives that if they didn't abide by this new law that cops would bust in their doors etc. They really relish the thought of doing damage to those they hate who have different political views, so much so that they would make them and their families defenseless in the face of criminals and tyrannical government.


There is no problem......we live in a free state and in said state there will always be a certain amount of danger that is directly related to the amount of freedom we enjoy.


There are two classes of people that push gun control. The vast majority are the ones that look at a school shooting and think that something anything must be done. They don't generally know much or anything about guns or what guns laws had already been violated in the incident and there usually have been some. You can argue all you want that rendering people helpless doesn't make gunmen harmless. It'll fall on deaf ears because something must be done. Ignorance is frightening to see in action.

The other class much smaller in number but, it is more authoritarian. The movers and shakers on the left are aware that they have convinced pretty much everyone they are going to convince. They want you to be helpless when they attempt to force an extreme agenda on the country.

The issue is a pipe dream for the left. Regardless of what law you pass, there are way too many guns out there for the government to collect in less than a decade.

I wish I shared your optimism. I don't. People are having their guns taken and confiscated in growing numbers despite the trend of CCW and gun legalization being a good one over the previous decades. In states like New Jersey they passed a law making AR-15s and other semi-auto weapons illegal. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law and the Supreme Court refused to hear it, so federally all the states under the fascist Second Circuit Court of Appeals are not allowed to own AR-15s. That trend is growing.

And then there is the growing trend of local laws allowing for disarming people because a municipal court judge says so without a jury even convening, and laws allowing anybody who reports you as a danger having the power to disarm you. I am familiar with these measures as well since my wife and I were disarmed and forced to turn over all our firearms to the police literally because I civilly criticized a public figure Democrat on a public Facebook page without any profanity or threats or defamation. For that I was disarmed while the Democrat was literally liking calls for my death on his public Facebook account. Such end arounds are increasing and laws are constantly getting proposed with similar provisions for disarming people.

@WingedRyno Those restrictions can and probably will be appealed. Most of the time they get struck down. Too many people don't want this.

@MickeyRat I hope that you're right. But in the case of the Second Circuit states I discussed, the Supreme Court refused to take the case. So that's the end of the road and there is nowhere else to appeal. Not a great sign.


If you don’t have a gun, how will you shoot anyone?

Outlawing Drugs worked so well, let's outlaw gun. Then no more problem, right!!!!!!

@Serg97 “If you cannot stop every occurrence of a crime, then laws are meaningless”.

@InternetDorkWeb I spent years enforcing drug laws, and arresting the same people time after time. Do you believe that if I was arresting people for gun possession crimes I would have the same problem, OH, you're right be cause most of the dealers I arrested did have guns. Also, do you really believe that outlawing guns will stop gun violence?


Personally, I don’t like to view these questions from a left-right perspective. In truth, there is no need to. The argument is really about the interpretation of the Constitution. In particular, we are talking about the Second Amendment. The reason I say interpretation is because it is not obvious how the Second Amendment should apply to us today.

Much is said about the intentions of the framers; in other words, what they had in mind should have some bearing on our interpretation of what they wrote. Now, before I get into my thoughts, in the interest of full disclosure, I support every word in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. However, that does not mean that I believe the document cannot or should not be changed to rise with modern challenges.

Anyone who supports the Constitution must also support the idea that the Constitution can, should, and must be changed from time to time. Why? It is designed by our founding fathers to be changeable in order that it may adapt and remain valid from generation to generation and from age to age. Once again, to be very clear, I support the Second Amendment, and that may color my thinking. Nevertheless, here I go.

Let’s begin by looking at the second amendment itself:

“Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed.”

Despite the fact that the Second Amendment is just a single, short sentence, it is surprisingly complicated. It would seem to me that two things, that are not to be infringed, are listed here:

  1. A well regulated militia
  2. The people’s right to keep and bear arms.

Let’s look at a few definitions of key words:

  1. Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
  2. Militia: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

These first two words offer very little difficulty. The next two, however, are rather cumbersome. Indeed, I will not offer definitions for these words, I will, instead, discuss them.


The part of that phrase that pops out at us today is “regulated,” and this, of course, makes us think of “regulation;” in other words, limited by “rules” (“regulation” comes from the Latin word “regulatum,” meaning “according to rule,” which comes from “regulo,” “to direct.” It is also connected to the word “regula,” meaning “ruler, measuring stick” ). Whatever the connotations of the word today, in the 18th century, the word “regulated” could mean simply “following a rule, orderly.” One might well argue that the only difference between an armed, belligerent mob and a militia is the fact that the latter is not only orderly in its conduct but submissive to order—it operates based on a well-defined rule of order and conduct. If you add the word “well” to the mix, then we have the idea that the founding fathers felt that one thing necessary to the “safety of a free state” was a disciplined group of citizens acting as an orderly militia. It would be well now to ask: did the phrase “well-regulated” apply to the word “arms”? If it did, which I doubt given the construction of the sentence, it would only mean something like “weapons in good repair” if we continue to use the word to mean “following a rule, orderly.” Now, on to the real issue in the Second Amendment, the word “arms.”


Today, we take this word to mean “guns,” but let us take the longer view. Remember, the founding fathers of our country, with rare exception, were all classically educated—they were all highly skilled in the languages of Latin and Ancient Greek. Indeed, they viewed the English language and English words through this lens. When they used the word “arms,” they had something clearly in mind. Unfortunately, what they had in mind was vague.

The Latin word from which “arms” is derived is “arma.” It’s a plural word. It’s a kind of word that we call “only plural” (pluralis tantum). That means that it’s never used in the singular. It’s meaning is “weapons.” To the Romans, the word meant the sword (gladius), the spear (pilum), the lance (hasta), the shield (scutum) and the body armor (lorica, galea, ocrea, etc.). At least that is what would probably have come to the Roman mind when hearing the word “arma,” but it could be extended to anything—even a rock if that was the only thing at hand.

To our founding fathers, it would have meant the flintlock musket, the saber, the canon, and all the accoutrement of the 18th century solider. It would have greatly simplified things if they had said exactly that: “A[n orderly] militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear [flintlock muskets and as many sabers as they can carry], should not be infringed,” but they did not.

So, we are left to decide for ourselves, just as the founding fathers intended, what the Second Amendment means to us and for our society today. In truth, citizens are not free to own and operate any form of “arma” they like, and I seriously doubt that any of my friends—no matter how gun-totin’ they might be—would feel safe with their having a neighbor with a nuclear or biological weapon at his/her disposal. The fact is that we do restrict the types of weapons that private citizens are permitted to own. The question is: which guns are to be permitted and which ones aren’t?

I don’t pretend to know the answer, but I don’t think it is simply a question of right and left politics. The founding fathers anticipated that we would be responsible people with well-developed minds, capable of discussing things rationally. I hate to think we are letting them down.

What I've read about the meaning of the word 'regulated' in old-tyme speak is more along the line of "to make regular", as in 'the militia should be a normal thing'. Sorry, but I can't site my source, as it was years ago that I came across this definition, and in the context of the government's 'right' to 'regulate interstate commerce'. As in 'to make interstate commerce a normal, unimpeded thing'. That puts things in a totally different light.
I believe it's not so much the right or left, but the New World Order who is willing to do anything to make the American people believe that it's in our best interests that we give up our guns so that the world can then be safe. In other words, make ourselves helpless.

It is possible that the "well regulated militia" meant that the states were supposed to train their militias. Not just the National Guard but all the citizens.

I have interacted with you on only two threads, and in both threads you have started by saying "I support X" only to then argue how you don't support X. You claimed you were a free speech "absolutist" in the other thread before giving your view that some people on this forum should have their accounts deleted.

As to this topic, the Second Amendment is much more clear than you admit I think.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed.”

This could very well have said, "Dental floss, being necessary to the security of a cavity free mouth, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed" and the law portion of it would not change at all. The first part is the reasoning behind it, an introduction, to give you an idea of what the anti-federalists like Patrick Henry were trying to accomplish with their law. The law part is the part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

You can disagree with their reasoning, you can think that their law they enacted didn't hit the mark, but what you cannot do is change the law part. And the law part could not be any more clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This isn't the only part of our Constitution where they give an introduction on their reasoning before laying down the law part. In fact, the Constitution starts with a Preamble that just does this. It says:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Now just because they gave their reasoning for establishing the Constitution, and just because you might rightfully think the Constitution they established failed to form a more perfect union or failed to insure tranquility, does not give you license to then deny the Constitution (the law part) that was established.

Sadly, one Supreme Court decision did just that using the preamble and the "more perfect union" phrase to deny the law part. That decision was Texas v. White which ruled that (despite the Tenth Amendment) states could not secede from the union. That was a poor judicial finding based on poor reasoning that wanted to ignore law rather than follow it.

Because of the law part, there is no need for me to quibble with your understanding of their reasoning regarding militia and "well regulated" although I do believe your understanding of what "well regulated meant" is not what the anti-federalists meant. A cursory look at our history makes clear that our Founders thought all men were the militia and that being armed was not just a right but an obligation to prevent tyranny of the federal government and well regulated meant well trained and disciplined.

It beggars the imagination that the antifederalists like Patrick Henry who thought the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government and thus proposed the first ten amendments to limit the federal power (which James Madison thought wasn't needed because in his view powers not given to the federal government were not allowed to be exercised) would somehow make ten amendments that ALL limited the power of the government and favored the rights of the people except, in your view, the Second Amendment which was apparently inserted in there to ensure that the federal government's ability to arm its own forces would not be infringed.

And to say that "arms" meant only the arms they had at that time is intellectually unpalatable. You think they required a new amendment to the Second Amendment as soon as a new weapon was invented? A new musket that held more gunpowder required a new amendment because it didn't exist when the Second Amendment was ratified? That makes as much sense as suggesting that the First Amendment only applies to quill pens and pamphlets. Which is to say it makes no sense.

The Second Amendment is clear textually and historically. It is there to ensure that the right of the people, the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government. It's clear as day.

You are correct that they made a process for changing the Constitution. But that process is a tough one that requires an amendment, not "interpreting" what you want the document to mean like pigs painting the side of a barn.

@WingedRyno Well written and spot-on!

@WingedRyno You said,

“I have interacted with you on only two threads, and in both threads you have started by saying "I support X" only to then argue how you don't support X. You claimed you were a free speech "absolutist" in the other thread before giving your view that some people on this forum should have their accounts deleted.”

My Reply:

Perhaps didn’t make myself clear. My original post was: “I’m a free speech absolutist, and I think this forum should be by and for real people who share and argue ideas in good faith rationally. That that end, fake accounts should expect to be deleted. Those are my opinions anyway.”

The part with which you seem to have taken issue is that I believe fake accounts should be deleted. That is what I believe. When I said that I was a free speech absolutist, I meant that I am against—among other things, deplatforming people with whom we disagree. I am not for deleting, as you infer, some members accounts because of what they say. I am in favor of deleting fake accounts. Are you in favor of allowing fake accounts? Do you think it would be a good thing?

I realize that you feel that being able to operate anonymously is valuable, and I can respect that. I do, however, and I said this already, feel that anonymity allows one to say whatever one likes with impunity. Free speech, as I see it, does not give one license to say whatever one wishes while being free from repercussions. I mean we have libel and slander laws for a reason. You suggested in your post (in the other thread) that we should be able to block the people we don’t want to hear from. I agree with that, but that is not, as far as I know, a function that we currently have in IDW, but I think it would be a good idea.

I realize you think my logic to be inconsistent, and that’s fine. I do, by the way, want to thank you for taking the time to reply to me in such a considered manner. Also, I would like to address my “weak cognitive skills” comment. I tend to say what I am thinking—as you have seen—and I don’t always consider how what I say might sound to others. As I have said several times, I believe in free speech, but I also believe in taking responsibility for what one says, so that is what I’ll do now. What I meant was trying to illustrate was the fact that I see many posts on IWD that from my perspective are either the result of poor articulation or poor thinking, and I don’t believe—nor have I said—that those members should have their accounts deleted. That was all I was trying to say, and I realize that it made me seem like an arrogant ass, and that might be because, well, I’m an arrogant ass. That said, I appreciate the graceful manner in which you replied, now, on to the other issue—the one in this thread.

You said, “As to this topic, the Second Amendment is much more clear than you admit I think.”

My Reply:

You use of the word “admit,” I think is inappropriate in this case because it would seem to suggest that I have some agenda—that being that I am trying to make something that is crystal clear seem opaque. I assure you that I am not. What I said in my post was what I think based on what I see in that clause. I don’t claim to be right while everyone else is wrong, I was just pointing out what I feel are vague aspects of the Second Amendment. I understand that the amendment is divided into prefatory and operative sections, but let me explain what I found most vague. I don’t want to get lost in the weeds here, so I’ll focus there.

“Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed.”

My main issue is the ambiguity concerning the word “arms.” Perhaps I misunderstood you, but you seem to imply that I meant that the amendment refers only to the weapons used at that time and that those are the only ones covered by it. You said, “And to say that "arms" meant only the arms they had at that time is intellectually unpalatable. You think they required a new amendment to the Second Amendment as soon as a new weapon was invented?”

I never said that, nor did I even imply it.

The point I was making was that, in my opinion, they used a word that was derived from the Latin word “arma.” The effect that classical education had on the founding fathers is often overlooked. I am “metaphysically certain” that every person involved in the drafting of that amendment was cognizant of the Latin roots of the word “arms.” They chose that word, I believe, so that the amendment would not become dated.

The founding fathers certainly understood that technology would advance what was possible in terms of weaponry, but in point of fact the arms they were thinking of when they drafted the amendment was the weapons of their day. How could they have thought anything else?

Once again, I do support the Second Amendment. I enjoy guns as much as the next person, and I’m a pretty good shot, and I would never support a repeal of the Second Amendment. Never. That said, we do have to decide what that word “arms” means for us today. Does it mean any sort of weapon at all?

I don’t think that a private citizen should be allowed to own absolutely any type of weapon. I know you see this as a contradiction, and maybe it is, but I am a person of many parts as, I am sure, you are. I have posted these things in good faith, and I hope they were received as such. We may disagree, and that is fine. I have enjoyed the discussion, and I look forward to the next time.


@DavidQDauthier thank you for the response. I think we can agree to disagree on the value of anonymous speech. You believe it shouldn't be permitted so that people can be held accountable for their speech, I think they can be held accountable for anonymous speech already (slander from an anonymous source does little damage as most know not to trust it) and as the ACLU reminds us, anonymous speech is valuable speech for speaking truth to power. We have two different views and the owners of the site will make their decision as they see fit.

As to arms being limited to weapons of the time, you are correct and I apologize for my reading comprehension fail. You were not suggesting that they meant for arms to be limited to muskets, canons, and other weapons of the time but pointing out that they didn't define "arms" and so it's left up to future generations to decide which arms are covered or not. I would note that they didn't define a set limit of arms to be covered but rather used the broad term to cover them all. The point was not to hunt squirrels, it was to defend against military armies. So it is clear that textually and historically the Second Amendment includes all those arms that are brought up in a worst case scenario (nukes which most governments can't develop or afford let alone the average individual and biological weapons and such). A constitutional amendment suggesting which arms the people do not have a right to keep and bear might be something to consider should nukes ever become a legitimate concern. But for now, that line of logic is used to deny people the right to keep and bear the semi-automatic 22 they got from their grandfather.

The text says arms and it means arms. It doesn't mean some arms. It doesn't mean arms that can beat one prowler in the middle of the night yet are ineffective against armies. It means arms. Again it must be emphasized that it is exceptionally clear that the historical intent of the amendment matches the language; it was meant to ensure the people could be armed to defend against government military forces not to hunt varmints. You ask how the Founders could have envisioned arms that had not been developed yet, but they were bright men and it's not difficult to do so. People envisioned those weapons before they created them as often happens before anything is invented as such inventions are rarely an accident. People envision laser weapons today. We can easily envision torpedos from spaceships, etc. There are numerous examples of envisioning future weapons, some that have become reality, some that are close, and some not yet created. It doesn't take a Michelangelo level of genius envisioning a helicopter, we boys are born wanting to play army, we are predators and imagining weapons comes easily. We could imagine hundreds in this thread if we tried without breaking a sweat. Our Founders were certainly as capable.

The words mean what they say. It's clear text and the history of the text is even more clear. We the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not just the arms the federal government is comfortable with us having. As designed, we own this nation, not our government and its ultimate security has always been understood (until recently perhaps) to rest with we the people.

@WingedRyno You've given me quite a few things to think about. I intend to read a bit more concerning the Second Amendment. I found a version of the US Constitution with commentaries and analysis. It's published by the Library of Congress (LOC). The basic US Constitution, like the one I have a home, is just a slender little volume, but that LOC version weighs in at over 2800 pages. I haven't looked through it yet, but I expect it'll be interesting. If you're interested, here's the link:




They won't rest until only violent criminals and genocidal dictators have guns


No, the left does not believe that laws will solve the problem of gun violence. Gun control laws solve the problem of a free and armed opposition.

Only if the Free are stupid enough to give up their guns, know matter what the law says.

Gun Control laws also provide a way to criminalize free armed people. I think that is one of the main reasons for these calls for more laws.


The fact is they don't have the resources or the man power to enforce the laws on the books now. More laws just mean more bureaucracy to control with. And that control is just an illusion. What would they do if we all just said no and refused to comply?

Trust me, the LEFT would invest a lot of money and manpower into getting your guns. There would be very little else that could distract them.

@Serg97 12 trillion rounds of ammo and 300 million guns say the Right will never have to worry about the left,Military men and women are right leaning, they use firearms as a tool of the trade.

@Madmax Don"t ever think the Military won"t fire on US citizens, check our history!!!

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:27493
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.