Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Writing a paper on Gun Control, need sources

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Edgewood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    So I am talking with another student about how the liberal government is slowly taking away gun rights until there is nothing left, and my prof. comes over and demands I show sources for my claims. I tell him I am happy to.

    I decided to write a paper showing the proof of my statements, and I don't believe I have enough to make a decent paper. If anyone on here has some links to youtube videos, articles, or news reports I could use, I would be beyond grateful.

    Also, and info about how the Second Amendment is vital to the security of the US would help too. This report will be read in front of hundreds of students, and so I think it would be well worth the effort.

    Much thanks to any and all help.

  2. #2
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    You can start with how the constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, and how government has not followed the constitution.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    If you have the time I suggest you read the book "Unintended Consequences". It does a fairly good job of presenting the chronology of gun-rights loss beginning with the first major laws in the 30's.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post


  5. #5
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    You need to read "America Fights Back" by Dave Workman & Alan Gottlieb.

    Enlightening book to say the least.

  6. #6
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Trent wrote:
    So I am talking with another student about how the liberal government is slowly taking away gun rights until there is nothing left, and my prof. comes over and demands I show sources for my claims. I tell him I am happy to.
    What claims did you make?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Edgewood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Trent wrote:
    So I am talking with another student about how the liberal government is slowly taking away gun rights until there is nothing left, and my prof. comes over and demands I show sources for my claims. I tell him I am happy to.
    What claims did you make?
    Nothing over the top at all. I talked briefly about how liberal parties like the Brady Campaign are dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment. Also that such organizations have used illegitimate tactics to convince the public of their viewpoint (like when the BC labeled semi-auto rifles as "assault rifles", and that hollow point bullets are "cop killers")

  8. #8
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote: Don't take this personally but your off my Christmas card list.

    Do you have any idea how many hours I am going to spend reading this site.
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  9. #9
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Trent wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Trent wrote:
    So I am talking with another student about how the liberal government is slowly taking away gun rights until there is nothing left, and my prof. comes over and demands I show sources for my claims. I tell him I am happy to.
    What claims did you make?
    Nothing over the top at all. I talked briefly about how liberal parties like the Brady Campaign are dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment. Also that such organizations have used illegitimate tactics to convince the public of their viewpoint (like when the BC labeled semi-auto rifles as "assault rifles", and that hollow point bullets are "cop killers")
    What is your source for the statement that the Brady Bunch is "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment?"






  10. #10
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote: Amazing site. I actually printed off the entire document, at work or course, and it was a hefty chunk of reading.
    "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." ~ Musashi

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    One of the most concise and inclusive sources on the second amendment is the 'Second Amendment Primer'. Included in the book is an incredible paper called 'The Embarrassing Second Amendment'. This is an absolute must.
    Live Free or Die!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Trent wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Trent wrote:
    So I am talking with another student about how the liberal government is slowly taking away gun rights until there is nothing left, and my prof. comes over and demands I show sources for my claims. I tell him I am happy to.
    What claims did you make?
    Nothing over the top at all. I talked briefly about how liberal parties like the Brady Campaign are dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment. Also that such organizations have used illegitimate tactics to convince the public of their viewpoint (like when the BC labeled semi-auto rifles as "assault rifles", and that hollow point bullets are "cop killers")
    What is your source for the statement that the Brady Bunch is "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment?"

    While I can't claim to speak for him, the highest "scorecard" state for the BC is California. That's a state where ownership and legal transfer of a firearm has an expiration date based on a book of their arbitrary standards, where the color of a gun can cause it to lose certification, where not paying a fee every 5 years and recording with the government what guns you own can result in prison time, where only the politically connected are issued concealed weapons permits, where private citizens may not engage in the transaction of their firearms without federal and state approval, where guns are banned solely on their cosmetic appearance, where a gun stolen from you and used in a crime can result in charges against you, and many other things. That is the closest state to their ideal state of being, and it's insane.

    Not only that, but taking this quote from their mission statement:

    Second, there are certain classes of weapons that should be out of bounds for private ownership. They include Saturday-night specials, which are used almost exclusively for crime, military-style assault weapons like Uzis and AK-47s, and .50-caliber sniper rifles, which serve no ordinary sporting purpose.
    It's clear they do not believe any firearms that are not strictly for sporting purposes should be banned. That is obviously in contrast to the second amendment, which provides a military-based reasoning for the people to keep and bear arms. Even if they don't want to ban all guns, those they do want to ban are in stark contrast to those which would be useful within the framework they claim the second amendment follows - for the militia.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    What is your source for the statement that the Brady Bunch is "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment?"
    Actually they have made this statement on numerous occasions, including filing supporting documents in court for the Washington, DC complete gun ban.

  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    Trent wrote:
    So I am talking with another student about how the liberal government is slowly taking away gun rights until there is nothing left, and my prof. comes over and demands I show sources for my claims. I tell him I am happy to.

    I decided to write a paper showing the proof of my statements, and I don't believe I have enough to make a decent paper. If anyone on here has some links to youtube videos, articles, or news reports I could use, I would be beyond grateful.

    Also, and info about how the Second Amendment is vital to the security of the US would help too. This report will be read in front of hundreds of students, and so I think it would be well worth the effort.

    Much thanks to any and all help.
    This is an excellent paper on gun control and may be helpful

    http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    If Google is failing you it must be because you typed "gun control logic."
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Curtis, Washington, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    Trent wrote:
    So I am talking with another student about how the liberal government is slowly taking away gun rights until there is nothing left, and my prof. comes over and demands I show sources for my claims. I tell him I am happy to.

    I decided to write a paper showing the proof of my statements, and I don't believe I have enough to make a decent paper. If anyone on here has some links to youtube videos, articles, or news reports I could use, I would be beyond grateful.

    Also, and info about how the Second Amendment is vital to the security of the US would help too. This report will be read in front of hundreds of students, and so I think it would be well worth the effort.

    Much thanks to any and all help.
    Author John Lott JR "More Guns, Less Crime"

    FBI Unified Crime Report

    CDC studies on guns.

    Fraternal Order of Police studies 2000 - current

  17. #17
    Regular Member 67390FE's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Angier, NC, USA
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    Google Gary Kleck or search Guncite.com for him.

  18. #18
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    What is your source for the statement that the Brady Bunch is "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment?"
    Actually they have made this statement on numerous occasions, including filing supporting documents in court for the Washington, DC complete gun ban.
    Can you provide a cite?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    heresolong wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    What is your source for the statement that the Brady Bunch is "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment?"
    Actually they have made this statement on numerous occasions, including filing supporting documents in court for the Washington, DC complete gun ban.
    Can you provide a cite?
    http://www.nraila.org/heller/conamic...ady_center.pdf
    Contrary to the lower court’s view, guaranteeing a
    right to keep and bear arms to “the people” does not
    imply that the right extends to private purposes unrelated
    to militia service.
    The Second Amendment guarantees individuals the
    right to be armed only as participants in an organized
    militia that serves the security needs of the States.
    The lower court argued that guaranteeing a right
    to keep weapons for private purposes such as hunting
    and self-defense was “the best way to ensure that the
    militia could serve when called.” Pet. App. 33a. This
    assertion defies common sense and is, once again, historically
    inaccurate. Guaranteeing a right to possess
    guns for private purposes is neither necessary nor sufficient
    as a means for arming state militias. It is not
    necessary, since the Constitution gave Congress the
    power to require the possession of guns for militia purposes,
    nor is it sufficient, because it makes the effective
    arming of the militia dependent on the uncertain
    choices of private citizens about whether to arm themselves
    and what arms to possess.
    The arming of the militia
    was a matter of government command, not individual
    choice.6
    While the lower court thought it self-evident that
    the word “keep” injects a private, non-militia purpose
    into the Amendment, there is no historical or textual
    basis to believe that while the right to “bear Arms” is
    military, the right to “keep and bear Arms” is not.
    Shall I continue?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  20. #20
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    heresolong wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    What is your source for the statement that the Brady Bunch is "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment?"
    Actually they have made this statement on numerous occasions, including filing supporting documents in court for the Washington, DC complete gun ban.
    Can you provide a cite?
    http://www.nraila.org/heller/conamic...ady_center.pdf
    Contrary to the lower court’s view, guaranteeing a
    right to keep and bear arms to “the people” does not
    imply that the right extends to private purposes unrelated
    to militia service.
    The Second Amendment guarantees individuals the
    right to be armed only as participants in an organized
    militia that serves the security needs of the States.
    The lower court argued that guaranteeing a right
    to keep weapons for private purposes such as hunting
    and self-defense was “the best way to ensure that the
    militia could serve when called.” Pet. App. 33a. This
    assertion defies common sense and is, once again, historically
    inaccurate. Guaranteeing a right to possess
    guns for private purposes is neither necessary nor sufficient
    as a means for arming state militias. It is not
    necessary, since the Constitution gave Congress the
    power to require the possession of guns for militia purposes,
    nor is it sufficient, because it makes the effective
    arming of the militia dependent on the uncertain
    choices of private citizens about whether to arm themselves
    and what arms to possess.
    The arming of the militia
    was a matter of government command, not individual
    choice.6
    While the lower court thought it self-evident that
    the word “keep” injects a private, non-militia purpose
    into the Amendment, there is no historical or textual
    basis to believe that while the right to “bear Arms” is
    military, the right to “keep and bear Arms” is not.
    Shall I continue?
    Yes.

    Please get to the part where it says that the Brady-ites are "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment."


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Yes.

    Please get to the part where it says that the Brady-ites are "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment."
    They were supporting a ban, a complete restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, in DC. The logic used was that the government may impose any restrictions it wants on private ownership of guns, as that is not protected by the second amendment. The wording used to describe their support of this ban was "support of 'common sense' gun control measures." It is obvious from their support of this ban and the wording used that they think common sense measures include the illegalization of privately owned guns. This violates the second amendment, which gives the people (those who comprise "America") the right to keep and bear arms.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Des Moines, Washington, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    I think you will find the NRA to be a usefull tool in your research. I copied the following from Seattle Guns .net

    Numbers don’t lie, people…


    Gun History

    After reading the following historical facts, read the part
    about Switzerland twice.

    A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control... From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


    ------------------------------

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1..5 million
    Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    ------------------------------

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
    of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
    rounded up and exterminated.

    ------------------------------
    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
    political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated

    ------------------------------

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
    Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    ------------------------------

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
    Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated

    ------------------------------

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
    educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    -----------------------------

    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
    because of gun control: 56 million..

    ------------------------------

    It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by
    new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their
    own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
    million dollars. The first year results are now in:

    List of 7 items:

    Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

    Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

    Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

    In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
    percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
    criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

    While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
    armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
    past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
    unarmed.

    There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
    ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
    safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was
    expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The
    Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

    You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
    disseminating this information.

    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
    gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens

    Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

    The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
    of this history lesson.

    With guns, we are 'citizens.'

    Without them, we are 'subjects'.

    During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew
    most Americans were ARMED!

    If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message
    to all of your friends.

    The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in
    defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more
    important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is
    supplemental.

    SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

    SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

    SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
    CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!


    IT'S A NO BRAINER!

    DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS
    IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

    I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!

    If you are too,
    please forward.


    Just think how powerful our government is getting!

    They think these other countries just didn't do it right..

    Learn from history.

    apintonut

    Posts: 23
    Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:09 pm
    Location: south king


  23. #23
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Yes.

    Please get to the part where it says that the Brady-ites are "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment."
    They were supporting a ban, a complete restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, in DC. The logic used was that the government may impose any restrictions it wants on private ownership of guns, as that is not protected by the second amendment. The wording used to describe their support of this ban was "support of 'common sense' gun control measures." It is obvious from their support of this ban and the wording used that they think common sense measures include the illegalization of privately owned guns. This violates the second amendment, which gives the people (those who comprise "America") the right to keep and bear arms.
    Inference. Biased,too.

    Where is the quote...and the cite for it.....that nails down that the Bradies are "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment?"


    Can you produce the quote, something that says, "We Bradies want to elminate all guns. We don't care about the 2A." Something like that...

    Skip the inference. Let's go for the quote...

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Yes.

    Please get to the part where it says that the Brady-ites are "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment."
    They were supporting a ban, a complete restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, in DC. The logic used was that the government may impose any restrictions it wants on private ownership of guns, as that is not protected by the second amendment. The wording used to describe their support of this ban was "support of 'common sense' gun control measures." It is obvious from their support of this ban and the wording used that they think common sense measures include the illegalization of privately owned guns. This violates the second amendment, which gives the people (those who comprise "America") the right to keep and bear arms.
    Inference. Biased,too.

    Where is the quote...and the cite for it.....that nails down that the Bradies are "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment?"


    Can you produce the quote, something that says, "We Bradies want to elminate all guns. We don't care about the 2A." Something like that...

    Skip the inference. Let's go for the quote...
    I forgot, inference requires intelligence, something obviously lacking on the other end of this conversation. Proof by induction is considered a legitimate form of logic.

    1. DC effectively banned the guns of Americans living there (America's guns).
    2. That was challenged
    3. Brady opposed (2)
    4. Brady argued in (3) that the second amendment did not apply to Americans, only Americans' government
    5. Through their support of (1) and the arguments put forth in (4) for the purpose of (3), Brady effectively stated they wish to eliminate the guns privately owned by Americans (i.e. America's guns).
    6. Brady put forth a statement after their position in (4) being legally denied that it disagreed with the court ruling and still supported (1) across the country.
    7. By (6), one can induce Brady supported and continues to support what is effectively total restriction on ownership of guns, extended to all areas.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •