Finally, we now understand what the real problem with gun-grabber is! Hoplophobia!

[rd_kent]

Thanks to Hoopla Phil for pointing this out......it's called HOPLOPHOBIA and a psychiatrist has done a study and I think everyone needs to read it, if you already haven't. This is the summarry....



"In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone.”—Dr. Sarah Thompson, MD"


The entire article can be found here... http://www.gunlaws.com/Hoplophobia%20Analysis.htm


And for the Pro-2A crowd, this statement may help us when dealing with the irrational anti-2A'er..

Rational arguments alone are not likely to be successful, especially since many people "feel" rather than "think". You also need to deal with the emotional responses of the anti-gun person. Remember that most people have been conditioned to associate firearms with dead toddlers. So you need to change the person's emotional responses along with his thoughts.


I only hope that some of our anti-second Amendment folks will have a look and THINK about what really motivates them. Self-analysis can be a good thing....

[east texas lib]

1. Uh-oh.

Now you've done it.;)

[rd_kent]

2. Well, sometimes the truth stings a bit.

[havocmom]

3. Hmm, don't know as I buy the premise that they fear people are out to shoot them

Seems most I have known harbor some delusion that some 'other' (law enforcement, generally) is always watching over them and they need not consider taking care of themselves for that reason. Nice, comfy delusion to maintain, this insistence that somebody is always there, protecting them, It is a lot easier than facing the fact that we are all at risk a good deal of the time. We are mortal and we can't change that hard fact.

While it does seem law enforcement is watching us more and more, the fact is they are spread pretty thin and not personal guardian angels. They usually arrive in time to draw those body outlines around you, not save yer ass. They simple can't get there fast enough in most cases, even if you do manage to put out a call for help. They investigate.

Over the years, there have been court cases where people tried to sue because law enforcement did not get there in time to prevent violence and/or harm. Over the years, courts have sided with law enforcement, that it just can't be expected that they can be there in time to prevent a crime.

Some good people just can't deal with the fact that if somebody means to hurt you, it is pretty likely you are on your own and that nobody else is gonna magically appear to save your ass.

While I fully accept that many do not want to have guns, I also expect that grown people might do better to accept the realities of the real dangers in our society. And if they choose to rally against the tragic loss of life, I can understand the goal, but I don't understand why they don't put the bulk of their effort to abolish the automobile. Until that happens, I sorta doubt the realistic sincerity of their argument that working for more gun control is about saving lives. If it's lives that matter, go for what takes more of them.... beep beep

[rd_kent]

4. Good points! Very valid ones.

[rfranklin]

9. I think this sums up the paranoia and magical thinking of gun totemists...

Paticularly prevalent is the idea that they will be quicker on the draw and straighter shooting than the "bad guys."

[havocmom]

24. practice practice practice

[PavePusher]

25. Why would they not be?

What do you have to back up your assumption?

[rfranklin]

27. Four Cops Killed in Washington State

Four Cops Killed in Washington State
Josh Pringle
Sunday, November 29, 2009

Authorities in Washington State call the shooting deaths of four police officers in a coffeehouse a targeted ambush.

Pierce County Police are looking for a male suspect after the Sunday shooting.

Police say a gunman burst into a coffee shop in a Tacoma suburb and shot four uniformed officers as they were working on their laptop computers.

A sheriff’s spokesman says one of the four officers killed in the shooting fought with the gunman, and may have wounded him.

http://www.cfra.com/?cat=3&nid=69651

All their training and practice didn't save them from a gun toting crazy.

[rrneck]

28. We live in

an imperfect world. Thank you for pointing that out.

[Euromutt]

34. Are you suggesting that those four Lakewood cops would still be alive...

...if they hadn't been carrying guns?

While I'm at it, has it not occurred to you that the fact that all four officers "were working on their laptop computers" might have played a part in the late, unlamented Mr. Clemmons' ability to get the drop on them?

[rfranklin]

37. The point is that carrying a gun does not make you invulnerable...

which is the subtext of so many of the posts that I see here from the obsessive gun supporters.

(Just to confuse you a bit more, I do own a Ruger SR9.)

[PavePusher]

40. Ah, no.

No-one here (or anywhere I discuss guns) even hints that "carrying a gun makes you invulnerable.

Please point out where anyone has...

Two words: "Situational Awareness"

[rfranklin]

42. Once again you are acting obtuse...

It was noted as a subtext in the posts of the gun totemists.

[PavePusher]

44. "Once again you are acting obtuse..."

Indeed. "hints"="subtext"

And I won't even go into the "subtext" implied with your "gun totemists" buzz phrase.

[rrneck]

45. Link? nt

[X_Digger]

48. No, that's what _you_ read into it.. subtext, indeed. pfft. n/t

[wjbarricklow]

46. Invulnerable? Or invincible?

I understand that having a gun, along with the appropriate training and skills does not guarantee safety. Sometimes, no matter how prepared you are, the bear wins. But I'm not going out there defenseless among the bears, just because they win from time to time. I will take whatever measures I deem to be appropriate to reduce my risk.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. Surely you can back that up with lots of links then?

[Caliman73]

29. Actually no.

Some people may have that belief, but most people are more realistic and circumspect. It is about giving yourself a chance and an effective tool for defending yourself. You may not be quicker or shoot as straight, but without a firearm, that doesn't even factor in. To think that a person who is willing to use a firearm to commit a crime will stop because you are not armed, or because the police might show up in another 3 or 4 minutes...that is the real magical thinking.

[rrneck]

30. If the "bad guys" think you'll shoot back

they won't mess with you to begin with.

[Paladin]

5. Hey, Genius:

The term "hoplophobia" has been kicking around the Gungeon for years, now. Your announcing it once again like you're Christopher Fucking Columbus doesn't render the term any more persuasive or clinically valid......

[rd_kent]

6. Hey, genius, relax and deal with your rage.

Did I somehow imply that I had DISCOVERED this like Christopher Fucking Columbus or are you just projecting. But thanks for your .02 worth. Have a nice day.

[Paladin]

13. I've Been Involved In Both Sides Of The Gun Debate For Almost 5 Decades, Now.

I think I have a pretty clear idea of which side harbors the overwhelming portion of rage. But you don't need 50 years of observation to know that it's the gun militants that are the enraged parties---just a couple of days viewing posts in the DU Guns forum will substantiate that. How many death threats have "Gun Banners" sent your way lately? Odds on, it's a lot shorter list than the scrawled notes, middle-of-the-night phone calls and incoherent emails I've received over the years from crazed, right-wing gun obsessives. Don't try to lay that "rage" shit on my side of this argument---not when you've got sub-human fascist rage junkies like Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin, and Dick Cheney in your front ranks. Have a nice day, yourself.....

[rd_kent]

15. Hahahahahahaha! Yeah, no rage there!

[Paladin]

16. On A Rage Kick Today, Are We?

I guess when the only implement you have at your disposal is a gun, everything is bound to look like a deserving target. Like I said, have a nice day----if you have the capacity for it.....

[rd_kent]

18. Yup. Just pointing out the obvious. Its my meme of the day....

[Paladin]

19. Extra Points To You For Admitting It..... (No Thought)

[rd_kent]

20. Well, thanks? I didn't realize this was a game, for points.

You seem to have joined sharesunited in giving away "points" for some strange game you two are playing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. You certainly demonstrated it here. Genius....LOL.

[Paladin]

71. Thanks For Keeping Your Posts Short, Dave.

You're doing everybody a favor, particularly yourself......

[Katya Mullethov]

73. Brevity

is the soul of wit .

[rd_kent]

74. Why don't YOU follow his lead and do all of US a favor....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. Don't be a hater.

[burrfoot]

7. I think there are a lot of

good points made in her article, but I also think she made a mistake so specifically addressing minority groups that she believes claim victim status. While some members of those groups undoubtedly act that way, it's just as true and valid that some members of any group you care to slice out of the population will act that way.

While I happen to agree with a lot of what she says, the tone of her article does not strike me as particularly scholarly (i.e. unbiased); and I think that may be a huge turn off to any anti-gun individual who may come across it.

I do, however, think that she is dead on the money that probably the very best way to change- or at least moderate- someone's opinion about guns is to actually take them to the range. Although I haven't personally had the experience of bringing an anti-gun friend to the range, I've brought several friends (as I'm sure many of us have) who were scared of them and they've always enjoyed the experience.

[rd_kent]

8. 100% correct. I have "converted" a few myself.

They had the irrational fear of guns and we went plinking at the range and guess what? They had a great time and a new understanding.

[The_Commonist]

10. That's just about the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Seriously...

[rd_kent]

11. Can you elaborate?

[Katya Mullethov]

12. I hereby stake my claim in the protected class

Of hoplophiles . If anyone says -ANYTHING- about my religion and sexual preference I am screaming HATE SPEECH ! HATE KWIME! IM OFFENDED! MY PUTHY HURTHS ! Well , right up until I loose my voice , that is . .

[enki23]

14. Wait... did you actually read that link?

It might have footnotes at the bottom, but that doesn't make it a "study." (And seriously, did you actually *look* at those footnotes?) This is just a typical retarded polemic wrapped in a bunch of neo-freudian horseshit. That little bit of mind-numbing stupid doesn't even rise to the level of a case study. Your average bullshit meta analysis makes more of an effort than this. This makes the anti-vaccine morons look like geniuses by comparison.

Your opponents don't "think," they just "feel." That's original. I assume a dubious IQ correlation will be next. Maybe follow that with a "study" favorably comparing the cranial capacities of the brave second amendment warriors to their rage-filled gun grabber enemies.

That this impresses you does not speak well for you. If that person were on my side on any issue I consider personally important, I'd hope like hell nobody ever read it. Seriously. This is like watching a monkey throw shit at me from behind a glass wall. I say that as a gun owner. I can only assume you didn't actually read this article, because it's chock full of paranoid far-right horseshit. It pushes all the buttons: opposition by nefarious jews, fear of all this "special interest groups", that old enemy the NAACP. If this is the shit you read, and are impressed by, I have no idea how you ended up here.

This sort of thing makes me want to find one of these rage-filled gun grabbers and just hand them over.

[The_Commonist]

17. What you said.

It was not a study.
It was a rant.

[Cheap_Trick]

21. And what motivates YOU to so willfully misinterpret the "2A"? Self-analysis can be a good thing...

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/04/pro-gun-mythology-culture-of-guns-death.html

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.

Second Amendment, US Constitution

The NRA, in fact and practice, ignores fully two thirds of the language of the Second Amendment. If you tried to get away with that in Freshman English, you would have flunked. Clearly and contrary to NRA propaganda, there is no unconditional right to own, keep, bear, or use firearms of any kind in the United States.

The NRA conveniently ignores and denigrates a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court that literally decrees how the Second Amendment is to be interpreted. And when it isn't ignored, it is "spun". That decision is U.S. v Miller:

The Court can not take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and therefore can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
...

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline."

U.S. v Miller

There is no way to spin that first sentence quoted above. The high court established a principle that guns may be regulated, even prohibited if they have no "...reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

We are often told by NRA proponents that "the militia" referred to in the Second Amendment, consists of all able free men between the ages of 17 and 45. That is taken to mean that all people meeting that description are, therefore, militia members.

That is nothing less than universal conscription; universal conscription is unconstitutional involuntary servitude. Li'l ol' ladies, the infirm, babies, the mentally retarded and/or disturbed, the terminally ill --all would be members of a militia if NRA arguments were taken to their absurd conclusions. It was, indeed, George Mason's argument but he lost that debate back in 1789 and it was James Madison who, at last, wrote the Second Amendment.

...

Another absurd theory often favored by NRA types would have you believe that what the founders meant by "militia" were un-regulated bands of well armed citizenry beyond the control and the regulation of states or national government. The proponents of this theory will tell you that the term "regulated" in the Second Amendment does not mean regulated "...by the government". Regulated, we are expected to believe, means self-regulated and equipped. In other words, armed to the teeth and unaccountable to anyone.

Believing the militias had been neglected, Madison would have denounced the NRA position. It was the opinion of both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison that the states had neglected the regulation of their militias. Madison wrote the second concurrent with his oft-stated criticism of the states and he sought to redress his grievance in that famous single sentence:

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.
US Constitution, Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment II

Madison was not talking about an individual right. He was talking about "regulation" which meant the same thing then that it does now. Who but a state could regulate what were, in fact, mobs dignified by the word militia? What are states if not "governments"? And if a militia is to be regulated as Madison proposed, then who, as Hamilton asked, but a duly ordained and freely elected government "of the people" should do so? Hamilton and Madision were right. The NRA has always been wrong.



Ouch. NRA "talking points" (lies) dismembered.

[rd_kent]

22. Yeah, you need to read the Heller case. Its not MY interpretation.

So you just wasted ALL that typing on nothing.

You really should go through the threads in the guns forum, all of your talking points have been addressed and thoroughly debunked. ESPECIALLY your "well-regulated" spew.

Ouch. Brady nonsense (lies) dismembered.

[Cheap_Trick]

26. By gawd, you've got your NRA bullshit down pat.

I bet James Brady doesn't think it's nonsense. Or lies.


I guess getting shot in the head might give you a little different perspective.

"all of your talking points have been addressed and thoroughly debunked" Debunked by who? The NRA? Constitutional scholars such as Ted Nugnet, Sarah Palin and Chuckie Heston? Well, gee whiz THAT settles it.:sarcasm:

Why don't you yell "Obama's gonna take my guns away!!!!" while you're at it, just to complete their screed.

Then go on over to FreeRepublick and compare barrel sizes with them.

(For the record, I don't want to take your guns away. I don't give a shit. If that's what it takes to make you feel all manly inside, so be it. I'd hate to make you gunnies cry. But I don't have a problem with prying them out of your "cold, dead hands" either. I'd just like to at least try and keep them out of the wrong hands...gang bangers, criminals, etc... You'd think that's something we could all agree on.:shrug:)

[SteveM]

36. Why are you fighting this culture war?...

In fact, most of the arguments by the gun-controllers HAVE been debunked, and not by your usual cast of characters (Nugent, Palin, etc.), tailor-made to run-down 2A advocates. (I can't figure this "sarcasm" thing: either you believe what you say or you are: well, just sort of, like, well maybe, like wow!...) You may wish to get a used copy of THE GREAT AMERICAN GUN DEBATE by Kates and Kleck, a good primer on how gun-control arguments are easily fractured, written by researchers who should meet anyone's standards of the academy.

Please reference Obama's web site for a look at his views on gun-control; please reference the DNC's web site for its views on gun-control. Is this the kind of thing you want to "yell" in public?

The usual reference to "barrel size" and "feel all manly inside" betrays an animosity towards gun-owners which flies in the face of your disingenuous "I don't give a shit." You do and you know it. And I also notice a peculiar desire betrayed in your "I'd hate to make your gunnies cry." I guess that's more wishy-washy sarcasm, since you have no power to make "gunnies" cry.

If you have read these threads for any length of time, you would know pro-2A folks already advocate "keeping guns out of the wrong hands... gang bangers, criminals, etc..."

[PavePusher]

41. Nice rant. Very Limbaugh/Beck-ish.

Now, got any supporting evidence? Facts? Stats?

[rd_kent]

43. Could you BE more disingenuous? And don't look now, but your strawmen are on fire.....

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Debunked by historical citation.

You really should read Heller. Miller was highly flawed for two reasons: One, firearms not in use by active military entities may still serve the purpose of tools of war (see british Home Guard program from WWII), and second, short barreled shotguns (trench guns) were and are in use by militaries around the world, including various parts of the United States armed forces.

Can you cite a military reg that states no service shotgun shall have a barrel length of less than 18 inches?

You also mis-used 'regulated'. Plenty of historical precedent to read that as 'equipped'.

[GreenStormCloud]

60. As usual, when an anti gets their argument sliced and diced, the anti...

resorts to insults, then runs away.

[X_Digger]

23. Hanging a lot on one decision, aren't you?

Miller died before his case could be heard, and his attorney didn't even argue the case.. You should read other cases such as US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.") or Presser v Illinois (""the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.")

Secondly, let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

Now, let's look at the second amendment itself-

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.

Who does the right belong to? The militia? No, the people. See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition of 'the people'.

Grammatically this can be broken down into two clauses- a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Similar wording can be found in other writing of the time, though it's fallen out of favor these days. For comparison, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..". That construction- '{reason}, {statement}' exists today, but we usually swap the clauses- "I'm going to the supermarket, I'm completely out of soda." or we add in a 'because' or 'since'- "Since I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the supermarket." or "I'm going to the supermarket because I'm completely out of soda."

So with the second section in mind, and rearranging the clauses per the third would yield a modern restatement of the second amendment as-

"Because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security, the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed."

or

"The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security."

Nothing in either of those statements says that arms are only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is _why_ protecting the right to be armed is protected. Since we know from the preamble (and the 9th/10th amendment) that the bill of rights is not exhaustive, we have to look outside the bill of rights itself to see if the founding fathers expected this right to extend beyond militia service.

State analogues of the second amendment that were adopted in the same timeframe give a clue-

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution.<15> It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791.<32> Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.<55>* Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."<56>

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."<89>**

So from analagous documents created by many of the same founding fathers or their peers, the individual right unconnected to militia service is fairly well laid out.

* Admittedly, not analogous in time to the others, but still demonstrates the point.
** same

[pipoman]

31. In Heller SCOTUS unanimously

agreed that the 2nd is an individual right, you do realize this, no? And about the NRA, they have in fact supported the NICS background system, the NFA which you actually quoted, and most of the other laws currently on the books, so your contention that the NRA is against regulation is simply ignorance on your part. Lastly, you are staking your entire belief system on this issue on Miller? You do know that there was nobody arguing since Miller was dead and his attorney failed to appear? The Miller decision is a joke. Maybe it is you who is drinking of the Brady Koolaid, which by the way is gasping it's last breath in repeated losses in public opinion and in legislation...dismal failure.

[Hoopla Phil]

32. Your well selected excerpts of Heller are very interesting. But paint an incorrect picture.

You should really read to the ending of each and every part in Heller rather than taking selected bits out (of context).

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

Who is the militia?

"As we will describe below, the “militia”
in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—
those who were male, able bodied, and within a
certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as
protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an
organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative
clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the
people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the
Second Amendment right is exercised individually and
belongs to all Americans."


And what does "well-regulated" mean?

"Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

[Hoopla Phil]

33. And here is another tid bit from Heller that many seem to willingly ignore

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."


On Edit: Now this may shock your "feelings" but this very plainly means; that if the militia is ever called up they need to show up with weapons, that they have kept at home, for duty with weapons that they need for duty. Currently that would be the selective fire M-4 Carbine, or possibly the older selective fire M-16 that is even named in the Heller decision, and the M-9 Beretta handgun.

It also says that people may object to this, and that such arms may not be very "useful against modern-day bombers and tanks", but that cannot change the "interpretation of the right".

I think we may see the eventual overturn of the 86 machine gun ban.

Seriously, you need to read the Heller decision for yourself.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. Someone hasn't been keeping up with the goings on at the Supreme Court.

[beevul]

72. Oh my...where to start...

I'll just put it plainly:

Your entire post is essentially hogwash.

You add context to the second amendment where none exists.

Additionally, you do not even understand how the document in question which contains the second amendment actually works, as a mechanism, or you would not be saying any of the things you are saying.

The bill of rights, is a laundry list of restrictions on GOVERNMENTAL POWER. The constitution authorizes what government MAY do, and the bill of rights spells out what government is FORBIDDEN from doing.

But don't take my word for it, heres the text of the actual document itself that spells it out:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

"Its powers" refers to the FEDERAL government.

The second amendment has a declaratory clause "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" and a restrictive clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

A reading of the second amendment as anything other than a simple restriction on governmental power, is an incorrect reading, according to the the preamble to the bill of rights itself.


And for good measure heres some historical context to throw in:

SENATOR JACOB HOWARD, SPEECH INTRODUCING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Speech delivered in the U.S. Senate, May 23, 1866


Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of
the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may
be—for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature—to
these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments
of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right
appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be
exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to
be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue
of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be
informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury
of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and
unusual punishments.

Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by
the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first
eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of
decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges,
rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizen solely as
a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts.



http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/conlaw/senatorhowardspeechonthefourteenthamendment.pdf


It was actually kind of sad to see you waste your effort with the nra strawman, as you have far larger and more difficult hurdles to overcome.

Chief among them, is reality.

[Euromutt]

35. I understand the mods frown on use of the term "hoplophobia" and its variants

Though frankly, given the barrage of of terms like "gun nut," "gun worshiper," "gun fetishist" and "gun totemist" (the latter in this very thread) that get slung around in this forum, not to mention the incessant references to "living your life in fear" and sexual inadequacy that gun owners supposedly suffer, I'm inclined to say that anyone who takes umbrage at anyone (themselves or others) being characterized as a "hoplophobe" needs to re-examine their priorities vis-à-vis unacceptable pejoratives.

[SteveM]

38. "Hoplophobia" is frowned on? Pretty mild stuff, and very often accurate. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

54. It is no more or less valid than 'gun grabber' or 'gun nut'

It is not a clinical diagnosis. It's presence in one medical dictionary is meaningless.

It's a clever smear, that's all.

[SteveM]

55. Hoplophobia strikes me as more humorous then malicious; that visual thing...

IMO, the motivations behind gun-control are a fear of, or aversion to self-defense, and a consequent animosity toward those who would exercise it. I'm not sure whether this springs wholly from a fear of weaponry since Sens. DiFi and Schumer seem to be taken by that which they seek to ban.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. I disagree.

I think most of the drive for gun control is more complex than that. I don't have a complete working theory, but it's more blaming the tool, based on it's perceived malicious capability, while discounting the motives of the user.

Like they trust in human nature so much that people simply wouldn't commit XYZ crime IF ONLY a convienient tool wasn't available to enable the crime.

It's a correlation causation problem. Sort of like how the right wing seems to think if we legalize gay marriage, it will encourage more people to be gay or something. Idunno, their signal to noise ratio is high.

[Euromutt]

61. So it's not a clinical diagnosis; big deal

Homophobia and xenophobia aren't clinical diagnoses either, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as a homophobe or a xenophobe, or homophobic and xenophobic behavior.

And the fact that hoplophobia isn't a clinical disagnosis is arguably all for the better. That way, use of the term doesn't mean "you have a mental disorder," but rather "you're simply bigoted."

[rd_kent]

63. +100000. Well put!

[AtheistCrusader]

68. What are you, a Republican?

You only get one vote!



(just kidding)

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Which brings us full circle to the OP.

It's not a clinical diagnosis recognized by any medical institute I am aware of, as a valid Anxiety Disorder, therefore, it doesn't belong in any medical dictionary, has been included in only one, and was such included 4 years ago, and not worthy of a post proclaiming 'NOW IT'S OFFICIAL' blah blah.

[Euromutt]

70. Well, there you have a point

Do note that Dr. Thompson, in the linked-to piece, explicitly states that "most anti-gun people do not have true phobias." The term is, in effect, simply a label for a prejudicial aversion to firearms, just like homophobia isn't a clinical diagnosis, but simply a label for a prejudicial aversion to gays. Which isn't to say neither term serves a purpose: both are a short and effective way of communicating that the subject's opinion is not based on reason, but simply on prejudice developed through cultural conditioning or whatnot.

[Hoopla Phil]

39. I think this thread is safe. It does not accuse any D.U. member directly of

hoplophobia so it should be cool with the rules on decorum. I recall a sub-thread once on hoplophobia that was alerted on and the mods left it alone while deleting many posts of the to offended party. Ha Ha Ha.

[rd_kent]

47. Well, the term HAS been accepted and is in use in the Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine!

So, I fail to see how it could be seen as offensive......

[AtheistCrusader]

53. I daresay I could find a couple words in any dictionary that some would find offensive.

It's more in the use, not the word. And it's in the dictionary is thin cover for a broad-brush attack.

Always take the high road, even if your opponents do not. Shit like this is not taking the high road.

[rd_kent]

56. A MEDICAL DICTIONARY!!!!! FFS!!!! Its an accepted MEDICAL TERM!

If you go to the doctor with the symptoms, you just might get DIAGNOSED with hoplophobia.

How can a bona fide medical term be offensive?

[AtheistCrusader]

58. I just posted three links to accredited medical entities that deal specifically with mental health

issues. Not a one of them recognizes the term 'hoplophobia' as a clinical diagnosis.

Can you cite one that does?

http://www.psych.org/search.aspx?SearchPhrase=hoplophob...
0 results
http://wwwsearch.nimh.nih.gov/?q=hoplophobia&entqr=0&ud...
nada
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?section=Search&Templat...
zilch


I maintain, this is nothing more than a clever attack. And I say that with the full admission that I have used it as such myself, and meant every bit of it.

[rd_kent]

64. Euromutt explains it best....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=286751&mesg_id=287256

[AtheistCrusader]

52. What do you mean 'finally'?

Jeff Cooper was writing about this shit years ago.

I don't think it's actually recognized by any Psychiatric body as an actual clinical diagnosis.

http://www.psych.org/search.aspx?SearchPhrase=hoplophobia
0 results
http://wwwsearch.nimh.nih.gov/?q=hoplophobia&entqr=0&ud=1&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&client=internet_frontend&proxystylesheet=internet_frontend&site=internet_collection
nada
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?section=Search&Template=Search/SearchDisplay.cfm
zilch

etcetera.

So, while it sounds nice, it's pretty much crap.

[rd_kent]

62. Its an accepted Medical term now. In 2006, it was added to the Concise Medical Dictionary.

But whatever. It is what it is....

[AtheistCrusader]

66. 2006 is not 'now'.

Nor does inclusion in one medical dictionary mean a damn thing.

[rd_kent]

69. Like I said...whatever...

Take it or leave it. I will still use it, seems quite appropriate, just like homophobia and xenophobia, both NOT recognized medical diagnosis but accepted as a legitimate descriptive term.

[rd_kent]

65. Euromutt explains it best...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=286751&mesg_id=287256

[Glassunion]

75. Hoplophobia!?!? They are afraid homosexuals?!?!?

:sarcasm:


It's not just me... Do a spelling check on Hoplophobia.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Yeah, most electronic dictionaries aren't going to figure it out

since it's a mangling of latin, and not really based on anything concrete.

[Euromutt]

77. It's Greek, actually

From hoplon ("shield, weapon, tool") and phobos ("fear, hatred"). Strictly speaking, hoplophobia more readily translates to "an aversion to shields," but there's no ancient Greek work for firearm, for obvious reasons.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Crap, my mistake.

You're right, the greek shield.

Actually, it could be used as a weapon itself, but not it's primary function.