Home / Second Amendment Fallacies

Second Amendment Fallacies

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not ambiguous. 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.

While our forefathers could not be the fortune tellers of the future, they were still clear.

The United States has a well regulated milita. It has a military which surpasses most of its counterparts, with grenade launchers, smart bombs, and everything else it needs to defend its country.

The second Amendment was never intended as a free license for citizens to own hand guns and assault weapons.

If you look at the statistics of the world’s countries, the big eight had 157 gun deaths in 2003. The US had a number approaching 47,000.

There is no logical explanation but for the gun laws. Hand guns and assault weapons are destructive, not constructive.

As an animal lover, I could go further, but won’t. Because I know that hunting (as heinous as it to me) is a necessary thing when hunters are responsible and hunt what they will eat. Like fisherman who will eat what they catch.

I KNOW the opposing argument to eliminating handguns and assault weapons. The criminals will get them anyway. I would hope, in my world seen through the rose colored glasses that I have been accused of, that if diligence is used, we can get the guns. We can get the guns which wreak havoc on our society and perpetuate the statistics. We CAN get them, even from the criminals. It just requires due diligence, which this country may or may not have.

We’ve got to get ’em. Not from just citizens, but from criminals.

We have to make the penalties so stringent and strict that to have them isn’t worth it (unless one likes prison atmosphere for life), and we have to put a stop to it.

It is NOT deviant or a means to obfuscate the 2nd amendment to do so. Hunters can have their guns (ugh). Citizens can have their protection via guns other than handguns and assault weapons. And criminals must be quashed in their steps with the strictest penalties or at the very least the absconding of their weapons.

So let the rain fall…I’m going to get it from both sides. But you have to at least consider this. Eight of the most prolific countries on earth had 147 gun deaths last year. We had 40,000. That isn’t a coincidence. It is matter of the gun laws. ๐Ÿ™‚ I have tried to include book references that are on both sides of the issue.

Until we are ready to give up the handguns and assault weapons, we cannot begin to solve the problem….

Hell, as a republican, we can blow away intruders with hunting weapons (ugh) and shotguns….others are not necessary.


Powered by

About Claire

  • Exactly – 2nd amendment is about bearing arms in a organised state militia.

    Time to bring in some laws and regulations and start going after the manufacturers instead of the consumers – cut off the source of the problem

  • Claire

    Exactly, Jason. And those who would import them for no purpose other than to make the buck. I am a capitalist pig deluxe. I admit it. But even I have my scruples. Guns and drugs can be replaced. I WANT them to be replaced. We cannot be the country we are destined to be if we don’t fix it. If we don’t measure up to our destiny, which we always have, then we are destined the way of fallen civilizations of the past. if we don’t learn from them, we are destined to follow them into obscurity.


  • andy marsh

    I knew it was bound to happen..I knew Claire had to come up with something that would send me into a spin…

    the right of the people to keep and bear arms…seems pretty straight forward to me…

    granted…I own nothing but 2 shotguns…I’ve never used them to kill a human being…and yes…I did read that you would be generous enough to let me keep my shotguns and I so much appreciate your generousity!

    I think I’d like to see the statistics on how many of those 47,000 deaths sere undeserved deaths…ahhh but now we get into the death penalty discussion…I’d bet that a good portion of those 47,000 deaths were self defense..or maybe gang related…it’s my understanding that violent crime is down in FL since they instituted easier conceal carry regulations

    I’d call that culling the herd a bit…and that’s not a bad thing either…

  • Claire

    Andy, I will come back and defend my positions (for yours are wrong), but I have to eat first….see you in a bit ๐Ÿ™

  • andy marsh

    Wrong??? Well I never…..!!!

  • Claire

    No, Andy, its not straightforward at all. And while I believe in people’s right to bear certain arms, i.e., to hunt for food, kill Bambi (tears) and protect families, we no longer have to, as individuals protect our country with muskets, and we certainly don’t need handguns. They serve as weapons to kill, and for no other reason.

    What is an undeserved death? Any death by a handgun, absent law enforcement and the military (none of which was included in those statitistics for I believe they should have all the guns they want)….was a death. Deserved? What is deserved? I suspect many were gang related or blatant killing while committing a crime…those people should all be killed anyway, so, my point.

    They can make regulations more stringent, they can make background checks more detailed…that will only keep the guns away from people who probably, in other times, and other places, are probably fine to have them. In order to get em all…they have to take ’em from all…

    Lord, this chafes my republican skin…but it is true.


  • andy marsh

    I believe that the reasons that the forefathers put that clause in the constitution was not just for hunting, but so that we, the citizens could protect ourselves, when necessary against a government that could run out of control, not just to kill bambi. that’s the necessity of a secure state thing…just my opinion…

    I think the old lady in florida that defends herself with her pistol and kills a would-be attacker, I think his death is deserved. I think the local quick-mart type store owner that defends himself against robbers and kills one, I think that counts on the deserved list. I think the college student that pulls out a little .25 cal from her purse and kills a would-be rapist, I think that rapist goes on the deserved list also… I could go on and on with stories of people defending themselves with legally owned handguns and in this country that’s still a right.

    And I promise you this, if someone were to mess with one of my daughters, they’d find themselves on that deserved list as well.

  • andy marsh

    Oh yeah, one more thing 19-8??? damn…sounds like a football score!!!!!

  • Claire

    No, the forefathers put it in there so that we, as a baby country, could protect ourselves against a world who didn’t like the fact that we had broken away and were free, and felt that we were ripe for the taking. We have military that does that now.

    They could never conceive that a few years down the line we would be a superpower with the most powerful military on the planet.


  • andy marsh

    I think maybe you’re trying to convince me that you were there when they wrote it! I think that’s your interpretation of what they wrote and what I gave you above is mine.

  • Claire

    I believe the numbers you are looking for are 10-10…..:)


  • claire

    Yes, I have a seminal link with at least one of them…i know what was in their minds….and so do YOU ๐Ÿ™‚


  • andy marsh

    nah…last time I cared about the score of a cowboy game it ended up 26-10 and my giants won!!!

  • Claire

    But there is table dancing riding on this one ๐Ÿ™‚


  • andy marsh


  • Andy said:

    I think I’d like to see the statistics on how many of those 47,000 deaths sere undeserved deaths…

    Nearly all of them, genius. Unless one defines ‘deserved’ as someone got their hand on a gun and used it for an accidental shooting, homicide or suicide, it is hard to be more off base than you are. To believe what you do is also a sad commentary on your thoughts about your fellow Americans. Apparently, to you, we deserve to die. Yet, you’re the same guy playing the Ugly American role on other threads. You have some serious cognitive dissonance going on.

    The statistics Claire cited are irrefutable. They point to a country with a huge problem its legislators are refusing to address. And, it gets sadder than that. But for improved care in emergeny room trauma units, the number of deaths per year from gun fire would be even higher.

  • Hot shit! A Republican with the first reasonable Republican take on control in history. Careful, Clare…you are charting untread waters with your angle of reason and logic.

    Soon, you’ll be voting Democrat like a real person with a heart and mind. I loved your piece, and you still remain the nicest of all of us here in the group. Keep up the great work!


  • andy marsh

    Thanks Diva, I always knew I was a genius! I personally don’t think that all deaths are undeserved!

    But I guess, if someone disagrees with someone else around here, that’s call for sarcastic name calling. Like I said earlier, touch one of my kids and I’ll show you a deserved death!!!

  • Claire

    You know there is really an easy fix to this problem. The NRA has 2,000,000 members and a really strong political lobby. We just need to get 3,000,000 people in favor of gun control to join, vote a position change, let the elected officials off the hook (and dictate the new position)…want to see how fast those laws would change?


  • andy marsh

    That is the way this democracy works..I don’t see it happening, because all of us gun nuts would stand outside the polling places loaded for bear….keep all you pacifists away!!!

  • andy marsh

    that was a joke people…it’s Monday…so don’t start!!!

  • Claire

    Andy, I know it was a joke…and won’t start…but I’m not a pacifist…Im a warmonger in certain situations (as you’ve undoubtedly heard)….but thats military, not citizenry killing other citizenry with guns that are completely useless for any other discernible reason.

    Lono…not a chance that I will change sides unless the economic and military policies of the dems change…but on this one, I’m with ya. Thank you so much for commenting….

    Mac…what can I say? Eloquent and I thank you so much as well, for both reading and commenting…

    Andy…you know I love you, and you cheered for the “boys” so….so we can agree to disagree…:)

    Happy Monday to all….

  • andy marsh

    I figured YOU knew it was a joke Claire, that was for the benefit of the rest of the people out there that like to jump on here and yell at me…I mean, you know how sensitive I am!!!

  • Claire

    Andy, I have it on good authority (your wife) who confirms that you are sensitive to touch, to many things. But how sexy is it when those attempts at ‘raising’ sensitivity meet the cold hard steel of the handgun in your shoulder holster….when they are supposed to be concentrating on other things ๐Ÿ™‚


  • andy marsh

    I don’t have a shoulder holster…I don’t have a concealed carry permit…besides, my work takes me to military installations that would not allow me to bring a weapon on board anyway! I believe I could easily get one, as I already hold a security clearance from hell anyway and have had all the background checks done on me, but I don’t really feel the need for one.

    Like I said before, I only own 2 shotguns and they are strictly used to KILL BAMBI!

    All that said, I still believe in the right to own a handgun for your own self protection…

    I think the main reason I don’t own a handgun is because my wife probably would have shot me a long time ago!!! Because, I can be a real jerk sometimes!!! Really, I can!

  • htom


    The 47,000 figure includes ALL deaths by firearms, including suicides. The 47,xxx figure would be between 8th (Alzheimer’s, 49k) and 9th (kidney disease, 37k) in the 2003 World Almanac “Cause of Death” listing.

    But wait … the table on page 80 claims that according to the National Safety Council there were a total of 28,847 firearms deaths in 1999:
    Unintentional 824
    Suicides 16,599
    Homicides 10,826
    Undetermined 324
    and (not counted in the total) lethal intervention 299.

    Note that auto-pedicycle accidents were ~800. Should we be taking all of the pedicycles, or all of the autos — which “caused” 42,000 deaths?

  • Claire

    htom…thank you so much for reading and commenting…

    Included in those “unintentional” deaths, are children who found and played with their parents handguns and blew their friend away “unintentionally”….

    Even if I accept your statistics…do you think that 30,000 is better than 40,000? No, it isn’t…and those statistics are 6 years old….


  • on the other hand, they have boatloads of guns up in canada and almost no (comparatively speaking) gun-related homicides.

    not sure what that says about us.

    memme they all drink decaf or something.

  • Claire

    Mark, I must consult my Canadian sources, and also do some research….i would hate to think caffeine was the difference ๐Ÿ™‚

    Ill be back atcha….:)


  • htom

    I’d rather it was zero, of course, but that seems unlikely to happen on this planet.

    Yes, doubtless several of those deaths were children killing children. Probably not as many as you think.

    unintentional, all ages: 824
    under five: 12
    5-14: 76
    15-19: 126
    20-24: 125
    25-44: 279
    45-64: 140
    65-74: 33
    75 & over: 33

    Remember, this is the age of the victim, not that of the person who pulled the trigger.

    Almost all (if not all) of the “unintentional” killings with firearms involve multiple violations of Cooper’s Four Rules, and there’s no reason not to teach them to every child of five. But that would be to admit that the NRA’s Eddie Eagle program might actually be effective, so I expect the idiots to continue to shoot each other and others, since it’s just to complicated to teach kids to:

    1) Always handle every firearm as if it’s loaded.
    2) Never let the muzzle cover anything you don’t want destroyed.
    3) Never put your finger on the trigger until you’re ready to fire.
    4) Always be sure of your target, and what is above, below, beside, beyond, and through that target.

    Ain’t gonna happen. If it worked, it would lower the accident rate, and decrease the “need” for gun confiscation, so you won’t do it.

  • SFC Ski

    I think we should have a mommy state, one that would keep me from owning a firearm if I ever choose to buy one, rather than hold me responsible for its proper use and safe storage away from children and foolish adults.

  • hey, why not?…we’ve got a daddy state right now.

    this’d go right along with ‘family values’ & all that crap.

  • htom, you undermine your own argument. The comparison to pedicycle accidents while ignoring the other 46,000 deaths due to gun violence is very, very selective.

    Furthermore, you insult our intelligence. Automobiles serve a function that is often a necesssity. Handguns do not. People obtain guns because they want them, not because they need them.

  • SFC Ski

    If someone is breaking into your house at 2 AM, you need a gun.

    I believe it was Claire who said the penalties for misusing a firearm should be very severe, I agree, and let me have the choice to own a firearm or not.

    As for autos, they are only a necessity because many Americans have made them so. Even if autos are a necessity, do we need SUV’s, big heavy dangerous vehicles? For tha matter, should be have sports cars?

    How do we reduce the risks of our machinery? We educate those who operate the machines. Make getting a gun license at least as difficult as going thru driver’s ed and taking a test, that will reduce a lot of accidents.

  • htom

    The comparison is apt because the intentional killings are (with the exception of the lethal interventions and the unknown number of justifiable self-defense shootings; the total is probably less than a thousand) illegal. They involve a violation of the law. They are a result of disobeying the law — usually several laws. Exempting the suicides, usually by someone who is violating firearms laws by possessing the firearm he’s using.

    By what mechanism is making more laws for the obedient going to produce obedience in the disobedient?

    Falls and poisonings both had over 14,000 fatal accidents in 2001. Drowning, 3,300. Are you campaigning against swimming pools, bathtubs, and five-gallon buckets?

  • Claire

    htom, the fact that you even equate gun deaths and your faulty statistics to swimming pools and accidents is ludicrous. Mac is right..you undermine your own argument…

    SFC…I have no objection to your owning a gun to protect your family…just not a handgun or an AK47….you can kill an intruder quite handily with a shotgun.

    Good discussion all!!! I am enjoying it…:)


  • andy marsh

    much easier to keep a pistol under your mattress…bed gets really lumpy with a shotgun under there!!!

  • Claire

    Andy..put it under the bed so the dog can drag it out and accidentally kill the mailman…:) no lumpy mattress, but 10-20 in Attica…lolol


  • andy marsh

    you give my dogs way to much credit. pillowtop california king…no way they could get their heads under there and then get them back out!!!besides…they’re dumber than I am!!!


  • htom

    If it’s so ludicrous why did you begin by confounding all firearms deaths, including homicides and suicides, with firearms accidents?

    Of course, when you do that, firearms look much more dangerous!

    You’re welcome to your fears; they’re just a poor basis for making laws for the rest of us.

  • Claire

    htom…Because the majority of firearm deaths are the result of handguns and assault weapons. The occasional hunting accident with a 30/30 or whatever hunters use..(not being one, I don’t know) are minimal.

    This isn’t a scare tactic, its a fact…a fact that must be addressed. I wish we didn’t have to have laws regarding anything but safe drinking water and food that is safe to eat, but we do. And there will always be people who break them. We can stop alot of the killing both crime related and accidental by eliminating two classes of weapons….

    But I appreciate your input, you make considered arguments, just as mac, andy, mark, sfc, lono, and jason have…(if i missed someone, it was unintentional)…:)


  • htom, firearms are inherently dangerous. There is simply no evading that fact. You might as well just go on an admit you like guns and want them in widespread circulation. That is your real argument. It is an utterly weak argument, but, at least you would be telling the truth.

    What of human nature? (htom did not ask, but being a generous sort, I will do it for him.) In the absence of handguns, some people will still attempt mayhem. But, they will be less successful. The chance of causing a death by firearm is much higher than for other weapons. So Suzy Suicide will fail more often. So will Harry Homicide. The result will be a decrease in violent deaths to something much closer to the rates from other countries.

  • andy marsh

    people are inherently dangerous…firearms are inanimate

  • htom

    “Assault weapons” are a minor source of criminal firearms use. http://www.awbansunset.com/crime.html I suspect that the “hunting rifles” you’re not objecting to probably kill more humans each year (there’s a trick here — most “assault weapons” are hunting rifles when they’re not being demonized.)

    Where did you get the 47,000 figure? There are a couple of recent birth-14 studies that talk about 47,000 fatalities of that age group — all of which point out that only 150 (or so, depending on the study and year) are due to firearms accidents.

    Brazil has ~47,000 firearms homicides a year — but Brazil has laws very similar to those that those advocating “gun control law” want. Those laws don’t seem to be effective there. Why should they be effective here?

    The problem (at least as I see it) is that guns, like rocks, just lay there. They don’t do anything until some human picks them up and pulls the trigger.*

    I think that you’re scared. Perhaps you should be. But the solution you propose will result in more deaths, not fewer, in the long run.

    In some ways the world would be a better place if the gun hadn’t been invented. But I’m glad that it was. It helps the elderly, the weak, the handicapped, those alone, to protect themselves against the many, the strong, the trained, those willing to break the law. They’re not the only aid that those folk need, but they are an aid, and there is no cause to deny it to them because of your fears of evil doers.

    Like guns? [shrug] I suppose so. I like lots of fine machines. I have more calculators and books in my collections, though. Most firearms are not intrinsicly dangerous, at least as I think of that term. Rattlesnakes and nitroglycerine are intrinsicly dangerous. Guns just lay there.

    Suzy Suicide will find other methods — just look at the foreign suicide stats. Harry Homicide will do the same. Part of our problem is that we have an incredibly violent culture. We killed more, a few years ago, with edged weapons (knives, axes, saws, …) than the Brits did with ALL means. Both as a number killed and as a rate of deaths per 100k. And the same for personal weapons (hands, feet, boots, …) more than they did for ALL weapons, both number and rate.

    Why are we so violent? I don’t know. But it is not because of firearms; they’re being used as a scapegoat in this discussion.

    What will happen in your world is that Suzy won’t be able to drive off a rapist by threatening to shoot him. That elderly couple will be at the mercy of a gang of a half-dozen well-muscled toughs. Not a world that I think is an improvement on this one.

    *Well, there is the occasional rare case, almost every year, where a dog, or a parrot, or a deer, or some other being discharges the firearm. Guns, though, they just lay there.

  • โ€œThe tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrantsโ€ฆGod forbid we should ever be twenty years without such rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms!โ€ โ€“ Thomas Jefferson

    โ€œMake yourself a sheep and the wolves will eat you.โ€ โ€“ Benjamin Franklin

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    I think the message our forefathers were trying to convey is very clear.