Social Question

Dutchess_III's avatar

Men, is it difficult for you to understand how a woman thinks?

Asked by Dutchess_III (46811points) March 31st, 2018

I ask this because over and over I see men coming up with all these macho solutions to school shootings, seeming not to take into consideration that 76% of all teachers are female and we see things very differently than men. I’m pretty sure that 90% (just guessing) of female teachers do not want to carry a gun. One reason is it creates more problems than it solves. And yet Kansas was suggesting a bill that if there was a shooting they would hold the school’s responsible if the teachers didn’t have guns.

Men have daydreams of saving the day, Rambo style. Even Trump said he’d run toward gun fire and save the kids. We all know that’s bullshit.

I have daydreams too, even daydreams of saving people, but never, not once, has visions of me killing someone been part of them.

Do you think the apparent inability for so many men to see things through a woman’s eyes is a problem?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

81 Answers

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I have been married for over 28 years and still can’t understand how a woman thinks.

elbanditoroso's avatar

A couple of comments:

1) Women aren’t doing themselves a favor, as a gender, by saying “understand how a woman things”. It immediately makes women different. In a world where a goal appears to be gender blindness (merit, not gender being the key) the concept of “what a woman thinks” is and antiquated construct.

2) The better approach, and the one that I try to follow, is “what’s another view or approach to the problem?”. In your example (men running into buildings like Rambo) that’s a gut call; but a gut call I heard from several women as well.

But the bottom line is that usually the gut reaction is the stupid one – male or female – and that the better reaction is to think about things and come up with an approach that might actually work.

Think Bush, Cheney, and the whole Iraq War fiasco, being driven by this urge to flex our muscles but not taking the time to give any thought to the consequences.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It makes them different from….who @elbanditoroso?

ragingloli's avatar

*from whom
Also, men do not want to understand.

Dutchess_III's avatar

* Your being a pane today Raggy.

ragingloli's avatar

*pain.
*comma after ‘today’

ragingloli's avatar

also *you’re

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Why is it so important to correct us on grammar when your race is just going to crush us someday , @ragingloli ?

ragingloli's avatar

It is one of our genetic imperatives.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

You’re not allowed to crush morons?
That why you hate Trump so much??<yes that’s two question marks, bet that gets your space panties all in a bunch!
If you’re not allowed to crush morons you better find a different planet to take over this one is over run by morons.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Raggy, you have derailed my thread. BAD genetic imperative! BAD!

SQUEEKY2's avatar

LOL^^^ Im sorry @Dutchess_III she is just trying to beat good grammar in this dumb truck driver before her race eats us.

Dutchess_III's avatar

He didn’t even see the trap I set! LOL! I only made one genuine mistake, and that was to not put a comma before his name.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Is @elbanditoroso ever going to come back and answer my question?

elbanditoroso's avatar

@Dutchess_III – gee whiz, I was out in the back yard. Sorry I wasn’t here to respond to you the moment you posted. Please accept my apology.

Maybe the word “different” was wrong. I should have written “a false dichotomy”

Dutchess_III's avatar

OK, how would it be a “false dichotomy?”

Dutchess_III's avatar

This is a really good example. This is a conversation I’m having with a guy on FB.

HIM Probably just a macho male thing like you would say but I’d rather die with a gun in my hand then begging on my knees on the floor only to shot!
Look at those on the plane that went down in Pennsylvania 9/11 they didn’t have hardly a chance but they did something.
That’s my only response, give them a chance.

ME That’s because you’re a guy. And it was men who took that plane down. That’s what guys do. 76% of teachers are female.

HIM I thought we were equal. Don’t women deserve at least a chance?

ME We are equal. A chance to do what?

It’s like he can’t fathom that I would rather hide my students first, and position myself in front of them to protect them as best I can, rather than go out in a raging blaze of bloody glory.

Zaku's avatar

Seems like you’ve got a very specific and extreme example wrapped in a much more general and wide-ranging question.

For the school situation, I think it’s crazy to suggest arming even male teachers, unless it’s a military academy. I think it’s only wackos (unfortunately many of which are in elected office) suggesting giving guns to teachers is a good idea.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Kansas.

I think it’s insane to suggest it too. Especially when you get to the HS level. Most of the male students could overpower female teachers and take their guns.

As for my motivation, it’s been this teacher / gun debate that I realized, again, that it seems like most men can’t even begin to imagine that women, in general, don’t think the way they do.
It’s like the sex thing…all the debates we’ve had, with men trying to mansplain how we women feel about sex and about our bodies…it’s crazy! This country is driven by men who don’t recognize the other half of the population.

I’m trying to understand this. That’s why I addressed the Q to the men.

Zaku's avatar

Well yes, it’s a generalization, but yes most men think rather differently than most women, and most don’t have very good understandings of how women generally think or feel, and we tend to communicate differently, and many men tend not to know how much they don’t know, and often project their own ways of thinking on everyone else (and women sometimes do that back, too).

It’s a big topic though, but yes even though I think I understand a lot, I often don’t get how other people, particularly women, are thinking or feeling about things, or what their communications do or don’t mean.

I think the problem in general is people thinking they understand the fullness of many complex things involving other people, when they really don’t.

Dutchess_III's avatar

There we go! Do you think women try more to understand men than vise versa? Are they, in general, more open to compromise?

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Raggy….I win. Teach said “Indefinite pronouns may seem plural but they are treated as singular pronouns in formal writing/English usage. You are correct: everyone dies. ❤️”

ragingloli's avatar

did you ask about “everyone”, or “100% of people”?

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@Dutchess_III First, what the fuck has this got to do with men and “seeing things through a womans eyes” I hate to break it to you but it’s not really an issue, you as usual want it to be because you have proven time and time again that you have issues with men. You need counseling for this. I’m being serious.

Second nobody is saying teachers will be forced to carry only that those who are qualified and have the desire to be allowed to do so.

Third you are not the ambassator for all women. There are going to be some who will want to carry. Guaranteed.

Fourth by your own words about a quarter of teachers are men so you don’t think they get some say?

Zaku's avatar

@Dutchess_III “There we go! Do you think women try more to understand men than vise versa?”
In general, I think that’s fair to say. But I say that also from what I think some of the typical differences are between men and women, or perhaps more accurately, humans’ masculine and feminine aspects (which we all have both of). In general though, the feminine mind is sensitive and perceptive and pays attention to details of others cues in many forms and wonders what’s going on for other people, while the masculine aspect tends to relate to direct statements, assertions, agreements, meanings and direct physicality.

“Are they, in general, more open to compromise?”
I think that’s harder for me to say and may be more a matter of caring about different things.

Except perhaps in some cases, say, a lovesick lad trying to figure out a lass who’s not that interested, I’d say quite the reverse on both counts, but that’s not the usual situation.

kritiper's avatar

It took me a while, like, until I turned 45. With help from a book called “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus,” articles in Playboy magazine (“The Rules of Dating” by Tracey Pepper, Playboy magazine, July 1994), and discussions with women who were willing to talk about the things I wanted to know about. So I think I know how women think. Not entirely, but well enough, I believe.
Women always expect men to think the way they do, and vice-versa. Hence so much of the problem of each sex trying to understand the other. It would seem that men really are from Mars, and women from Venus. Whatever. Sure as hell not from the same place, it would seem…

kritiper's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me FABULOUS answer!!! Wish I could give you more than 1 GA…

MrGrimm888's avatar

To the basic question, it’s not possible. Man will master space, and time, long before gaining remote understanding of “how” a female thinks.

To the details I will bring up nature. In nature, the mother is commonly the only one around. Moma bears fight off larger males all of the time. Females are very capable of putting up some sort of fight. I know my Mom would have fought an army to save me when I was young.

Men’s role in human history has always been to protect the tribe, in an ideal situation. So it should come as no surprise that they would think of defense over fleeing.

The example of a female teacher putting herself between students and a shooter is just bad judgement. We can assume that the shooter would simply shoot her to death, leaving the students as even easier targets. So. This “courageous” act, puts the students in more danger. A dead female is more defenseless than a live one…

I’m not supporting the armed teachers idea, but keep in mind that this issue doesn’t have a magic solution. People are grasping at straws here. It’s obviously viewed as a last resort.

seawulf575's avatar

I always heard men think with their heads and women think with their hearts. Not sure it is possible for one sex to fully understand the other. But I will comment on some of the rest of the question. As a guy and a gun owner of many years, I have never had a daydream of rushing into fray to blast away at bad guys and save the day. But I do believe that if I needed my gun, I would be at a point of them or me. That would be the only reason I would ever pull it out and point it at another human being. What’s the old adage? Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it?
You talk about saving people by herding them into a closet. I would rather send them out a window if possible…totally get them out of the situation. If I had to get into hiding, I would rather have a gun as a last resort. If the bad guy with the gun opens the closet and you aren’t armed, you and all those you herded in there are now sitting ducks.
I think the question comes down to the understanding a woman has of how a man thinks as much as a man understanding a woman.

Dutchess_III's avatar

OK, put another way. When trying to come up with a plan to keep an institution safe (schools) which is predominantly female, should the men in charge just ignore the suggestions and feelings of the women? That’s what they’re doing by suggesting the teacher’s pack guns. I have yet to find a single teacher that even remotely wants that, yet it keeps getting thrown around. Kansas was even considering a bill that would make the school’s liable for a shooting if the staff wasn’t armed. (Brilliant strategy. Make a bill that makes the state itself liable!) It’s like we’re flat being ignored.
“But you’d feel safer with a gun! Then you can just take a shooter out, like I would!”
“No, I wouldn’t feel safer. Especially not at the high school level where almost any male student could over power me and take it away.”
“Well, only a coward would hide. I thought we were supposed to be equal by now.”
It feels like dismissal. Shouldn’t they at least try?

cookieman's avatar

No. I don’t subscribe to the idea that someone is difficult to understand or communicate with because our genders are different. Super old fashioned point of view.

If I’m having trouble understanding my wife, then either I’m not listening or she’s being vague or obtuse. Works in reverse too.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

“should the men in charge just ignore the suggestions and feelings of the women? That’s what they’re doing by suggesting the teacher’s pack guns”

No, it’s not. For the last time nobody is mandating that teachers carry only that those who wish to carry be allowed to do so. This has nothing to do with gender. You also assume it’s “men in charge here” or that only men are suggesting this. I know for a fact that a local gun range here in town offered free CCW permit classes to teachers and they packed the house. More than half were female. I think you need to understand that others may not react the same way you are reacting. This is light years away from “men not understanding women”

kritiper's avatar

@Dutchess_III One person’s success is another person’s failure. You can’t expect everybody and his/her dog to think the same. People are different!

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III the other part that may be unclear to us is what the proposed Kansas law actually says. Does it say all teachers have to be armed? Does it say at least someone on the staff has to be armed? Does it say an armed guard needs to be on staff? Without all the details, I’m not sure I can comment on the specifics. From an abstract point of view, I’m all for gun rights. But that includes the right to not want one. I wouldn’t want to force someone to carry a gun…that would be foolish.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Hey Dutch. What do you think females want to do to add protection, or reduce school shootings? Maybe I missed it.

I would prefer an armed guard I guess. But I have very low expectations about the government’s ability to get it right. Maybe local law enforcement agencies should be required to rotate actual cops in?....

Dutchess_III's avatar

That’s my point @kritiper. Many of the men I’ve talked to don’t seem to understand that women DO think differently than men. We’re not driven by the same hormones or societal expectations. We learned, either the easy way or the hard way, not to physically retaliate against a man because they’ll beat the shit out of us. Some men are saying, “Why don’t you want to carry a gun?” BECAUSE I DON’T WANT TO. I think it would be more dangerous than anything, especially at the high school level.
Apparently Kansas is kicking around the idea that it’s not foolish to mandate it.

@MrGrimm888 Stricter gun laws, ban on assault type weapons, mandatory 14 day waiting period, mandatory back ground check. Any mental health diagnosis should automatically be available for a back ground check.
One trained armed guard, I suppose. I prefer there not to be a need for an armed guard.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Still on the ban kick of certain guns?
All that will do is take them out of the hand of law abiding people, criminals will never surrender theirs,.
Why do people think an out right ban will lead to the path of unicorns and rainbows?
Stricter gun laws yes, bans NO!

Dutchess_III's avatar

Why don’t they use hand grenades instead? You can get them legally, you know. Why don’t they use M16s? They’re banned for civilian use, but you can get one on the black market for $18,000. Why don’t they use C4?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Please show me where you can legally buy a live hand grenade?
I am for stricter gun laws just totally against bans of any kind.
Oh and show me where you can get a fully operational M16 for $18,000?

Dutchess_III's avatar

I take it back. It’s illegal for non-military people to own a hand grendade. They are banned for non military. A lot of weapons are banned for non military. But if they want them they’ll find a way, right? Apparently they prefer to take the easy, legal way out.

@ragingloli from your link “This is a National Firearms Act item and requires BATF approval prior to transfer.” Very difficult to get, far out of reach financially for a 17 year old, or almost anyone else for that matter, so, for most intents and purposes they are banned.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Grenades? Terrible analogy. There aren’t already hundreds of thousands of those in circulation, like with “military like” guns. That’s why a ban is not remotely feasible. Or, not enforceable…

If these weapons were new, and hadn’t been in circulation, then we could go with a ban, and it would be effective.

kritiper's avatar

@Dutchess_III Yes, men do think differently than women, and it seems hard for men to understand that.
Women also think differently than men, and it seems hard for women to understand that, too, which was a point I was trying to make here…you included…

Dutchess_III's avatar

But I think women have a better grip on the male psyche than vise versa. We know what is probably on your mind. We don’t really understand it, but we know, because you let us know.

BTW, came across this today, and it’s perfect.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

“But I think women have a better grip on the male psyche than vise versa”
I highly doubt it. Some people are readily able to understand others and there are those who generally lack the ability. Most women have no earthly idea as do most men. It’s an uncommon trait.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I would opine that women know how to manipulate men more. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they “understand” us…

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, they at least have to know the individual man for manipulation to work. Unless they use sex. That works on total strangers.

kritiper's avatar

@Dutchess_III ^^^^^Certainly. I’ve always said that if a woman can understand a 6 year old boy, she should have no problem understanding a grown man.
Notice that I said “should.”
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard women complain that they don’t understand men!
Go figure!

MrGrimm888's avatar

We’re simpler than them. Or they’re more complex.

With the way women treat each other, I’m certain that they clearly don’t care for a female’s way of thinking…

I saw a thing on u-tube that said “men don’t understand women, but women do, and they hate each other.” Relevant.

kritiper's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I would have to agree with you.
I’ve heard it said that “the sisterhood is strong, but not THAT strong!” so there are limitations.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It’s a love/hate thing with women. We can be so catty and bitchy, and talk about each other behind our backs. Perhaps that’s why I don’t have a lot of friends. OTOH when you do meet a woman you connect with the conversations are deeper, more emotionally intellectual, for the most part, than conversations you have with men.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Understanding how a man thinks is easy, we want to play with our toys.
We want to fix things.
We want to play with naked women.
You women are for more complex that is why it’s hard for us men.

Dutchess_III's avatar

“We want to play with naked women…” LOLL!! Is that why men were always trying to divest me of my clothing? :D

Right…so it just means when it comes to serious matters regarding women the men, especially those who make the law, really need to try to listen, even if they don’t understand. They can’t keep dismissing us. When we say we don’t want to carry guns in school, they need to listen.
And things are slowly changing. Many things have gotten better. Understanding that most of us view sexual harassment as a threat, not as a compliment, is one thing that’s finally been accepted by many men, even if they don’t understand why.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Relevant.

I hope you can access that. Photobucket is just giving me fits.

kritiper's avatar

@Dutchess_III ”...is one thing that’s finally been accepted by many men, ...”
You mean
...is one thing that’s finally BEING accepted by many men, ...
And, yes, they may not understand why, and they may not wish to.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Dutch. I fail to see the “equality” that many women claim to want, judging by the cartoon. Build you houses, give you shiny valuable things, dance for/entertain you.

There is a interesting truth to it though. Women want possessions. Men want women…

ragingloli's avatar

I do not want equality with men.
I want to subjugate them for the next 10000 years, so they learn some perspective.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Prospective is important…

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Women want to be treated as equals ,do they really want to come down to our level??

Dutchess_III's avatar

:)~

Equal in respect, guys. Equal in taking our voices and our contributions seriously even if they’re different from yours.

I saw something on FB. Some life coach was whining to the audience how the #MeToo movement is hurting him. He had an position that needed to be filled. There were 3 candidates, 2 men and a woman. The woman was the most qualified, but she was also very attractive which made her dangerous. WTAF??? She was dangerous? Did he mean she was liable to start sexually attacking other people? No. Of course not. What he meant was, the men would start hitting on her, (which he probably think is within their “rights,”) but golly gee, they might get in trouble now.
So unfair to the men.

kritiper's avatar

I got some perspective. I have 4 sisters.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Wow. I was on a thread battling about the meaning of the second amendment, and a guy from the UK came on and asked:

“I am British, so you’ll have to forgive my ignorance. I had heard that the Second Amendment referred to developing a “well regulated militia”. Is this true, or does it state that any asshat can buy military grade ordnance to take with them when they go to Starbucks, or decide they want to shoot up a nightclub/cinema/church/plaza/school* (*delete as applicable)? Asking for a friend.”

I replied:
” Yes, it’s true. And we did. It’s called the National Guard. The NG takes care of civil and domestic matters. They are also ready to assist the regular military if called upon.

However, yes, there are those asshat who walk around with their decidedly unregulated selves and claim to stand on the 2nd. They insist that it’s “Mah RIGHTS.” It’s not. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the individual the right to own a gun. At the time, a gun was as necessary for a household as a horse, so they didn’t even think to bring it up. An individual’s right to own something as common place (then) as a horse isn’t addressed, either.”

And, I’d like to add, we do NOT want to repeal the second amendment. The amendment prevents the government from disarming the national guard.
We just want people to get their act together to understand what the 2A IS. And It’s not what you think it is.
******************************************
When I shared this as my own status a conservative male replied: ” Ask her how her knife collection is doing…..”

He could not fathom that a male could make statements like that. And my comments were liked by no less than 6 other males.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

The national guard is not the militia by definition. The NG is state sponsored so it cannot be the militia. The constitution 100% makes gun ownership an individual right. Not just me talking here but the supreme court, the supreme fucking court says the 2nd guarantees gun ownership is an individual right and that this right is not connected to the “militia”

Dutchess_III's avatar

I didn’t disagree with personal ownership. That’s fine. But, as you said, “that right is NOT connected to the militia.” The 2nd amendment specifically spells out the rights and protections of the MILITIA. The 2nd doesn’t apply to individuals.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

It does and the supreme court has ruled this to be the case.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, take it up with Alexander Hamilton He says it’s ridiculous to call every citizen in the country part of a well regulated militia. To be part of one requires consistent training and practice and a requirement that every man in the state get together every so often for that purpose so they can act in concert in defense of our nation. They also fall under the auspices of the state and federal government.The National Guard fits the bill to a T. Joe Blow with his beer and belly does not.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Don’t just cherry pick, here are a bunch of quotes.

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
“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.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They 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, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774–1776
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence… I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
”...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
– William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
– St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
– Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
”[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Dutchess_III's avatar

Oh good Lord. What does that have to do with regulation?

Also, just spot checking:
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776”

TJ didn’t not say that. It was IN a proposed draft of the Virginia constitution, but it didn’t make it They don’t know who said it.

Still, totally beside the point.

Zaku's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me Seems to have the right gist of this.

2nd Amendment: “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.”

The part about a militia is a rationale mentioned, but what it says to do about it is to not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

See for example this discussion on this point from Cornell Unversity .

Dutchess_III's avatar

That’s what the court ruled. But it still allows for regulation which is all we’re after.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I’m under the impression that you are supporting a/some bans. That’s not regulation. That’s a ban….

Dutchess_III's avatar

I for banning the bump stock on the AR 15.
I’m also for banning high capacity clips.
However, I’m rethinking the AR 15 over all thanks to many arguments. Not sure why that gun is so ‘pecial, but if it’s just like any other rifle or handgun then what the hell.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@Dutchess_III even us firearm enthusiasts support strong firearm laws.
Just not bans.
should there be a minimum age to own a firearm without adult supervision, of course there should be.
Should there be a limit to high capacity magazines, of course there should be.
Should bump stocks be illegal for civilian ownership, without a doubt YES.
Should safe storage become a mandatory law,YES!
Should we ban certain firearms because some nut job committed murder with one, NO!!

Dutchess_III's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 That’s all we’re asking for too. And I have friends who think exactly the same way. But there are some out just keep coming back to “You want to ban all guns!” And we keep saying, “No, we don’t.” You say that, and explain yourself till you’re blue in the face and they still keep going around full circle,“You want to ban all guns!”
@ARE_you_kidding_me Is a perfect example of that. If you look back on the thread I repeatedly said I’m not for banning. I’m for stricter regulation.
In the end he posted this in reply, for like, the 100th time.

ragingloli's avatar

They also claim they are also for regulation, but scream in rage at every and any attempt at regulation.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Rumor has it that Trump actually made it illegal to even possess a bump stock. Don’t know if it’s true or not.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@Dutchess_III You said you wanted to ban the AR-15

and for the record here was my stance on strict regulation

Dutchess_III's avatar

I also said that I have rethought my stance on the AR. Right here.
Stop spinning around in useless circles. Quit bringing up gun bans.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther