They are pro-socialist, which is just as bad as fascism. I'm anti-both.
Actually, I have. And the writers of the federalist papers considered the militia as the best way to keep the country free, but felt that the amount of training need to be "well regulated" would disrupt too many lives and advocated for smaller militias rather than a large one (such as a standing army) that the federal government could call up should the need arise (specifically Madison, Federalist Papers #29) The anti-federalist papers did not want to give the federal government control over the state militias for fear the larger government could use those militias in tyrannical ways. And they were right. The federal government HAS used federal forces against its own population many times.
People have argued that this invalidates the idea that the 2nd amendment protects an individuals right to own firearms, however that is nonsensical. Yes, the 18th century idea of a militia included membership into a state militia, however they also understood that if the need arises average citizens could join a militia at any time and would need their own firearms and be proficient in their use. That is why the Heller case won in its SCOTUS case.
Here is a good article, with quotes from James Madison, that ties it all together.
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-r...he-founders-all-federal-gun-restrictions-are/
Um, no. The research you are looking at (I know, because I've looked as well) includes homicides and suicides. DC is the number one for gun homicides per capita. The top 10 includes 4 blue states with strict gun laws. The actual cause of the high gun murders is the rate of poverty combined with population density. When you have a high concentration of low income in a high population density, you have more crime and more murders by firearms. The only difference is in states with less gun laws you have more of a mix between criminal homicide and justifiable homicide (both are considered homicides in the states but are, indeed, quite different). This is proven when you compare cities that have the highest population of people below the poverty line to the respective crime rates. All, including homicide (of which a firearm is used statistically in 3/4th of all homicide), are higher when poverty is higher.
So the problem is not with lax gun laws, its a social economical issue. Gun control will not fix that. It never has and never will.
So, your argument for gun control is flawed. Plain and simple.
Last edited:
