Quote:

Yet we follow laws written as a result of those wars no? Tonkin Gulf resolution, war powers act, etc....

Those wars were all started on false pretenses and arguably worse results than slave owners.

The end result is the basis behind those laws are claimed to still be valid even though the actual authority may be corrupt. Thus, even if slave owners did use the second amendment, or push for it, it is still just as valid. Though as mentioned it has been debated quite heavily and debunked in many ways as having any ties to slavery other than "some slave owners may have used it to their advantage".

That's all.

Quote:
Fewer gun deaths but significantly higher assaults, violent crime, rapes, etc. England would like a word with you, same with Italy and most European countries. Switzerland however would like to disagree with you personally (As every household has a gun since all members must serve and be prepared.)

Quote:

Correct. None of these are changes to the Constitution. They are state laws violating said Constitution. Amendments can be made but this one never will since it will never gather the required votes.

Quote:

This has indeed been a grey area of interpretation for awhile. It was first visited in 1939 in the Supreme Court, where it was ruled that it is NOT tied to the militia, however it was ruled ambiguously. Up until 1939, owning a firearm was practically a necessity of life even in modern metropolis cities of the time so it's no surprise this wasn't a question. However, it was attacked again later on and in 2008 revisted in the supreme court again. They clarified that indeed, as stated in 1939, there is no tie to militia.

Quote:

A bit unfair to say no? That same bias could be applied to your arguments as well? That's just name calling.

Quote:

Not the same person, but thank you?

I'm not denying at all the slave ownership of the founding fathers. Every ruling party had slaves back then from America all the way to Britain to the rest of Europe....

I am however denying the idea that it was passed to keep slaves in check. While, I am very sure many gun owners used it for that purpose, there are just as many valid arguments (http://www.theroot.com/views/2nd-amen ... passed-protect-slavery-no) against why it was not the basis of the second amendment.

Of course, a slave owner would want a firearm to defend against any form of uprising. Once again, it simplifies down to "to be used in defense".

I fail to see how just because some slave owners lobbied for the second amendment it makes it any less relevant for defense? We're currently following all sorts of laws written by people who have done despicable things, or were involved in them. (See all of Vietnam, Iraq, children dead in all those countries, etc.) Why? The basis of those laws is still just as sound.

Quote:

You can if you want to, but the period is lengthy, certain requirements must be met (some of which are unnecessary to safety) and often times there is a "rejection" built into the system to weed out the casuals.

Quote:

What? This is nonsense. The Second Amendment was written because it was a well acknowledged fact that defense is a natural born right of all peoples. The NRA nonsense (I am a member for years.) is that it has anything at all to do with hunting etc. Simply put, it exists solely because humans have a right to defend themselves and that includes from other humans. It is a natural born right of all living creatures on this planet, both animal and plant. I will not get into the other aspects (tyranny etc) because that has nothing to do with this, but in this case, it strictly applies to being used by regular people.

Long time lurker, first time poster here...

Firstly, nobody is saying she should have had her gun on her person at all times. Most people who own firearms keep them in secure locations. Now, this was a brutal attack. There's nothing indicating that she would have been able to defend herself had she had a gun in a secure location. There's nothing saying she could made it to the secure location to get her firearm. However, she would have had a chance to try.

The big question with this crime in the gun control debate is whether or not she should have had that CHOICE to protect herself. As of now, Jersey and other states are all passing laws making it more difficult for home owners to protect themselves. That should ALWAYS be viewed as suspect.

In states where gun control is less strict, firearms are also more of the norm. The less restriction, the higher chance this woman may have had something to protect herself. Again, no guarantees merely a chance.

This woman was not killed, but she was beaten, and this could have easily degraded into not only herself being raped but her entire family of children being forced to go through those things as well. She could have been killed, tortured, you name it. The police were not around, nor were they able to be called in time if they were.

So we have that, the potential rape, sodomization, and torture/deaths of this mother and her children being compared to accidental gun fatalities or injuries. Those are the justifications being used against allowing this woman the CHOICE to have protection.

- "She could accidentally leave it out and her child could shoot himself or others."

Last I checked there are plenty of laws already on the books enforcing this. Child endangerment, Neglect, and a slew of firearms specific laws relating to proper handling of a weapon. (Even unloaded.)

- "Relaxed gun laws would have made it more likely that the intruder be armed as well."

Not necessarily. Criminals do know the limits of their crimes and the repercussions and constantly play a risk/reward game. Bringing a weapon pretty much guarantees they will face significantly worse charges and go to jail for far worse. Assault will get you less than an attempted robbery with a weapon. Also, a much lighter security prison. No intelligent criminal will use a legally obtained firearm in a crime. They will go down to Newark, or East New York, and purchase one on the streets under the table that was stolen from some legal owners home.

- "Some of us don't feel that small chance she "could" have defended herself outweighs the extensively documented far increased odds that someone in her family would die by gunshot, in cases like this often by her own gun after someone far more used to violence has disarmed her. "

How is what you feel relevant to the defense and protection of another family? I don't have the right to demand your children don't have televisions in your home do I? They can fall and break and the gasses / chemicals inside can harm their kid and family. The steak knife set a professional cook has can easily injure and harm children too. Yet, I don't have any right to demand you put those down.... So why do you have the right to feel that way? It is not your family, it is hers (or his, or whomevers). I repeat my earlier concern that there are plenty of laws on the books already in all areas to mitigate those risks. Enforce them, or perhaps make them more effective.

It's tragic this woman faced this, but this could have been far worse and the WORST thing to do is sit there going "This guy will be caught by the police." ... Woopdie do, a woman still potentially almost had her life ruined. She was literally at the mercy of another human being trying to harm her. No animal in the entire animal kingdom will actively work to prevent another of its kind from defending itself when attacked. Why are we the only species that seems to think that humans defending themselves is risky and dangerous, but relying on OTHER humans to defend/capture people is not any less risky? It's self castration as a collective whole.