Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
AEROFAN
Posts: 1874
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:47 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:25 pm

I don't understand why anyone would want to have guns. Guns should only be in the hands of the army or law enforcement officials. Everyone else should use rocks if they want to harm someone.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” ~Harlan Ellison~
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:01 pm



Quoting Aerofan (Reply 200):
I don't understand why anyone would want to have guns.

Question: Have you read any of the above thread?
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:17 pm



Quoting Aerofan (Reply 200):
I don't understand why anyone would want to have guns. Guns should only be in the hands of the army or law enforcement officials. Everyone else should use rocks if they want to harm someone

Why should I be limited to rocks if someone's approaching me with a baseball bat and evil intent and the nearest policeman is miles away?

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 197):
Can anyone explain how "all American citizens" are deemed to be "well regulated"

The Constitution of the United States sort of does a spectacular job at that. Plus the desire of most citizens to support the union and our government by, for and of the people (in spite of what most politicians appear to think).

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 196):
Quoting JetMech (Reply 177):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 176):
Too many criminals, not enough police.

This begs the question, what is it about American society that tends to breed a greater proportion of criminals compared to other industrialised first world countries?

An excellent question - one that I won't take up here, since the causes of crime deserve a standalone thread. Besides, I'm leaving shortly for the Florida Keys, and my mind is on sunshine and sailing.

Because we are freer than any other nation, both in acts and ideas. People are less restrained here than anywhere else, and that's one of the reasons for both rejoicing at living here and stepping back and being wary of the responsibility for taking care of yourself that comes with citizenship.

As far as going to the Keys.....don't forget the drain plug.

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 193):
Doesnt the constitution require that those who be allowed to "bear arms" be part of a "well-regulated militia"? Can someone please explain how an average citizen is allowed to own a firearm unless they are part of a "well-regulated militia"?

MD answered pretty well, but I'd like to make it simple. All able bodied citizens are members of the militia.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:24 pm



Quoting Queso (Reply 201):
Quoting Aerofan (Reply 200):
I don't understand why anyone would want to have guns.

Question: Have you read any of the above thread?

I'm guessing . . . .  no 

Quoting Queso (Reply 184):
better than Glocks

 irked  There you go again . . .  wink 

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 188):
I have a 21, don't shoot it much. They don't like cast bullets so I am told.

They don't like home made ammo thats for certain.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:28 pm



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 203):
Quoting Miamiair (Reply 188):
I have a 21, don't shoot it much. They don't like cast bullets so I am told.

They don't like home made ammo thats for certain.

It's the polygonal rifling (as you probably know) that makes them not do well with cast lead boolits. Same thing with my Desert Eagle, although I wouldn't want to shoot them in it anyway since it's gas operated.
 
aace24
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:16 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:26 am



Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
Fair gun control laws?

Oxymoron.

Users could be licensed, as with automobiles or other dangerous items, and that I'd have zero problem with as long as the license fees were minimal.

Ownership restrictions, I believe, are unconstitutional and should not be on the table. Law abiding citizens are not the problem, and the law breakers will always have access.

Firearms restriction laws affect almost no one but the law abiding citizens who cause almost none of the problems.

 checkmark   checkmark 

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Stiffer gun control laws will just lead to more crime. If a convicted felon wants to get ahold of a gun, it is very easy to do so, even with laws in place to prevent it.
 
CupraIbiza
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:55 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:35 am

OK.

I am nearly there. I can accept from what everyone has written that "all citizens" form part of the "militia"

But I still don't feel i understand where the "well regulated" part fits in

From what I can see only DL021 mentioned it. That the Constitution does a spectacular job. What does that mean?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 202):
Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 197):
Can anyone explain how "all American citizens" are deemed to be "well regulated"

The Constitution of the United States sort of does a spectacular job at that. Plus the desire of most citizens to support the union and our government by, for and of the people (in spite of what most politicians appear to think).

Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm



Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 206):
But I still don't feel i understand where the "well regulated" part fits in

From what I can see only DL021 mentioned it. That the Constitution does a spectacular job. What does that mean?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 202):
Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 197):
Can anyone explain how "all American citizens" are deemed to be "well regulated"

The Constitution of the United States sort of does a spectacular job at that. Plus the desire of most citizens to support the union and our government by, for and of the people (in spite of what most politicians appear to think).

The general assumption upon which our nations constitution rests is that all rights are inherent to man, and that laws exist only to restrict mans baser and anti-social behaviours. So...in essence....if it's not specifically forbidden here then it's allowed. Many don't or can't grasp that. They feel the need for some structure within which they can be educated to function, and these people end up believing that laws make things right, when they merely serve to make things illegal.

Our Constitution lays out what our federal government is allowed to do, what it can regulate, and reserves all other rights to the states, or the people. It's basic simplicity and it's adherence to basic truths have allowed it to remain fundamentally unchanged for hundreds of years, with the cost being a codebook filled with unneeded replication that enumerates the various smaller things which are deemed to be anti-societal behaviour and subject to government intervention and punishment by society for being anti-society.

The right to bear arms was mentioned as a specific right that should not be interfered with due to previous experiences with government that wished to remove firearms from citizens in order to subjugate those citizens and prevent them from acting against the tyranny that was oppressing them. This, along with the other specific rights and freedooms listed in the first 10 amendments (our "Bill of Rights") are merely specified instead of assumed so that no one got the idea they weren't rights and that they could be easily removed. The people representing the individual states insisted on these specifications, as well as the point that all other rights not specifically mentioned were reserved to the people, because they wanted it to be clear that the government could not quarter people in homes, or restrict the right to peaceably assemble or prevent citizens from owning firearms. One has to lose their citizenship or their civil rights through due process in order to be legally deprived of these and any other rights.

The constitution laid out what the government is allowed to do...it did so very well, and has required very little revision...especially compared to other constitutions out there. Many, including the failed EU constitution, required so much volume in order to satisfy everyone, and demanded so much specificity in order to satisfy special interests that they were either destined to fail to be ratified (EU had to do end run around voters and call itself a treaty organization rather than a real entity by, for and of the people). Simplicity and universal truths are the best answers. The constitution did fail in certain areas by the compromises set up to deny people their rights (as with slaves and women) but those restrictions have been amended out of the constitution by popular acclamation.

I hope this complicated answer says that the simple elegance of our constitution allows it to lay out clearly the roles and limits of our government and, thusly, the militia....which is the people.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:05 am



Quoting DL021 (Reply 207):

Damned good post, Ian. Thanks.
 
CupraIbiza
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:55 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:14 pm



Quoting Queso (Reply 208):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 207):


Damned good post, Ian. Thanks.

But no mention of "well regulated"??
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:20 pm



Quoting Queso (Reply 208):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 207):


Damned good post, Ian. Thanks.

I'll second that!
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:47 pm

"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:33 pm



Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 209):
But no mention of "well regulated"??

Well, I did mention the rather large codebook which regulates our behaviour so that we can exist as a harmonious society. It makes anti-social behaviour difficult and civil-rights denial illegal.b
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:13 am

Interesting development in the Heller case. DC has fired their counsel.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080103/METRO/739378878/1001
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:45 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 214):
Interesting development in the Heller case. DC has fired their counsel.

real wise move, firing your lead counsel shortly before the SC argument.  sarcastic 
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:15 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 215):
real wise move, firing your lead counsel shortly before the SC argument.

Yeah, and goes a long way toward showing how strong their argument is! Ice cream comes in all flavors, but bullshit is still bullshit, no matter who is selling it.
 
CupraIbiza
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:55 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:30 am



Quoting DL021 (Reply 213):
Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 209):
But no mention of "well regulated"??

Well, I did mention the rather large codebook which regulates our behaviour so that we can exist as a harmonious society. It makes anti-social behaviour difficult and civil-rights denial illegal.b

You did mention quite a lot indeed. What you didnt seem to address is this.

The constitution requires the "militia" to be "well regulated" I have accepted that the entire community is deemed to form said "militia". However how is the current "right to bear arms" well regulated.

Basically what is the definition of "well regulated" that allows arms to be acquired in the current manner?
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:48 am



Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 217):
The constitution requires the "militia" to be "well regulated" I have accepted that the entire community is deemed to form said "militia". However how is the current "right to bear arms" well regulated.

I apologize for not being specific enough. Allow me to correct that. Our actions are regulated by the laws that have been passed restricting certain behaviours that disrupt society and deny people their civil rights. Included in these codes/laws are restrictions on using firearms to deny people their life, liberty or property without due process of law. If a member of the militia (a citizen) uses a firearm to improperly do any of these things then they are subject to arrest, trial and punishment if found guilty.

This is, in a legal and absolute sense, well regulated. Since you accept that the entire community is the militia then the regulations imposed by society regulate them.

I guess that the use of the adjective "well" is debatable. Do you feel that the laws fail to state that denial of civil rights or life/liberty/property without due process of law runs against our constitution?
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
CupraIbiza
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:55 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:15 am

Thanks for that. I am now a lot clearer. I have to say now that I fully understand I would argue that those who wrote the constitution didn't have the current system in mind. In my very humble opinion the words "well regulated" were specifically inserted for a reason. That reason being that the said militia was an organisation of some kind. A people's army if you like. With a commander, ranks, chains of command, orders, oaths, regulations etc etc.

Wouldn't you agree that would be a much better system. That way people who wish to "bear arms" and be part of the "militia" would be required to be people who truly believed in the constitution. Upon some research I have discovered the Swiss have a system similar (I think?) to what I have just outlined.

As an outsider who is now a little more educated on the subject I would argue the system in the US has fallen down to one where people want all the "rights" to "bear arms" but without any of the "responsibilities"
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:10 pm



Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 217):
Basically what is the definition of "well regulated" that allows arms to be acquired in the current manner?

There is a current case that will be heard before the Supreme Court in a few months will hopefully affirm what Judge Laurence Silberman wrote an opinion found that: (A) The Second Amendment protects an individual right, not dependent on being a member of the militia. (B) That includes the right to own a handgun. {Ref: Shelley Parker, et. al. v. District of Columbia, 04-4071 (D.C. App.2007), 20,53.}

So you can disregard the "militia" part of the equation as the original wording in the Bill of Rights was a compromize between several of the states so that the BOR could have been accepted.
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
wingnut767
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:50 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:08 pm

Armed store customer foils armed holdup Thu Jan 3, 6:48 PM ET

INDIANAPOLIS - A customer at a grocery store stopped an armed robbery by pulling his own gun and holding the suspect at gunpoint until police arrived, authorities said.

Charlie Merrell, 51, was standing in a checkout lane at Bucks IGA Supermarket on Indianapolis' south side when a masked man jumped over a nearby counter and held a gun on a store employee, according to a police report made public Wednesday.

While the suspect demanded cash from workers, Merrell pulled his own handgun, pointed it at the robber and ordered him to put down his weapon, the report said. After a moment the suspect placed his gun and the cash on the counter, removed his mask and lay on the floor. Merrell held him at gunpoint Monday until police arrived and arrested the suspect

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/odd_armed_customer


Concealed weapon permits are great. If more people armed themselves it would make the criminals think twice.
Yakum purkan min shmaya
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:25 pm



Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 221):
Armed store customer foils armed holdup

I've seen several stories like this in the news recently. I wonder why the networks don't send satellite trucks and host their morning shows from the scenes where incidents like this happen, just like they do for school shootings.

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 221):
Concealed weapon permits are great. If more people armed themselves it would make the criminals think twice.

Absolutely correct. Can you imagine doctors being swamped by PTSD cases among criminals after they were all confronted by armed citizens when they attempted an assault?  boggled   fight 
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:28 pm



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 220):
So you can disregard the "militia" part of the equation as the original wording in the Bill of Rights was a compromize between several of the states so that the BOR could have been accepted.

No you can't. You can't disregard any part of the Constitution that is in disagreement with your model government. It's in there, and you have to handle it, which means you have to determine what "well regulations" are constitutional.

Funny thing: the first amendment does not have any clause about regulation, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly noted that government can and should regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. So, what makes people here think that the second amendment, which calls for regulation, cannot include regulations on time place or manner?
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:49 pm



Quoting Queso (Reply 222):
Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 221):
Armed store customer foils armed holdup

I've seen several stories like this in the news recently. I wonder why the networks don't send satellite trucks and host their morning shows from the scenes where incidents like this happen, just like they do for school shootings.

Could it be because it would give publicity to a concept that the networks oppose?  Smile
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
CupraIbiza
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:55 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:05 pm



Quoting Queso (Reply 222):
Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 221):
Concealed weapon permits are great. If more people armed themselves it would make the criminals think twice.

People who are dumb enough to attempt an armed holdup in a grocery story dont have they brain power to think once, let alone think twice.
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:11 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 224):
Could it be because it would give publicity to a concept that the networks oppose?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Texas at least, that isn't a concept opposed by the networks. I think it's just not as compelling a story as a school shooting is. Unless the shooter was an attractive young white woman.  Wink
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:25 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 224):
Could it be because it would give publicity to a concept that the networks oppose?

KDFW here in Dallas had one heck of a wake up call when their anti bias ran smack into a wall of public outrage after Rebecca Aguilars shameful October interview.
Invasive Journalism - Fire Rebecca Aguilar (by MDorBust Oct 17 2007 in Non Aviation)

She's still on suspension.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:21 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 227):
She's still on suspension.

As well she should be. "If there's no news, let's go out and make some up!"
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:50 pm



Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 219):
Upon some research I have discovered the Swiss have a system similar (I think?) to what I have just outlined.

Their system is similar but regulated differently due to the fact that firearms ownership in formerly feudal states was made difficult from the beginning and the system of civil rights was more of the "you get what we decide you get" variety.

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 219):
I would argue the system in the US has fallen down to one where people want all the "rights" to "bear arms" but without any of the "responsibilities"

I disagree to an extent, but you are correct in saying that people want rights without responsibility. Law abiding firearms owners...for the most part... are more cognizant of laws and more aware of the ramifications of their actions.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:57 pm



Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 219):
but without any of the "responsibilities"

What responibilities are those?
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
ANother
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:47 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Par

Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:39 pm



Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 219):
Upon some research I have discovered the Swiss have a system similar (I think?) to what I have just outlined.

The Swiss are struggling with their own system, which permits members of their armed services to bring their government-issued weapons, and ammunition, home between annual training obligations. A number of these weapons have been used in unfortunate events - including a shooting in the cantonal parliament in Zug and the shooting of an ex-Olympiad by her husband. I believe that the majority of the public want these weapons (and ammunition) to be kept outside the home in regulated armoires. Ironically the government is resisting.

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 221):
A customer at a grocery store stopped an armed robbery by pulling his own gun and holding the suspect at gunpoint until police arrived, authorities said.

Is this self-defense? As I understand it self-defense means protecting your self with the minimal force necessary in the situation. As I read this report I didn't see the customer being threatened in any way. While it may be admirable that the customer considered it right to protect the store owner's insured money, the consequences could have been much more serious.

On the debate on the language in the 2nd amendment - Arne't the numerous states' "National Guard" the well-regulated militia that is referred to?
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:19 pm



Quoting ANother (Reply 231):
A customer at a grocery store stopped an armed robbery by pulling his own gun and holding the suspect at gunpoint until police arrived, authorities said.

Is this self-defense? As I understand it self-defense means protecting your self with the minimal force necessary in the situation.

The right to self defence includes your property.

In my state lethal force is allowed to defend yourself or another from bodily injury.

In my experience the use of minimal force is a fantasy, as the implementation of sufficient force to stop someone from continuing an attack is the amount of force that prevents them from attacking you again. It's very hard to "wing" the guy or shoot the weapon from their hand, and if you just think about the possibilities from an assailant who has been slightly injured and is still capable of attacking you it's daunting.

If you use go beyond the threat to use force (because the threat failed), and implement force to defend yourself with a firearm it's necessary to shoot to kill. Unpleasant, and disconcerting to many, but that's the only way to look at it logically.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
tuiflyer
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:26 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:42 pm

My first post on A.Net, woop woop!

But anyway back to the discussion at hand . . .

Gun control should have been introduced in the US decades ago, you only have to look at how many people have been murdered needlessly because a couple of hicks in the South feel more secure when they have a gun in their jackets, We have to look at the mainstream here guys. When the constition was introduced no one could have predicted how much damage they would cause to communities, to families and to our society.

There are parts of the constition like liberty and freedom that still hold true and always will do, but the right to casually bear arms is not one of them.

I can see the point of protecting yourself from certain governments (say if a dictatorship rose) but with the media analysing every politicians operation in the US I can't see this happening anytime soon.

TUIflyer
Don't just travel, travel with a smile. . .
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:05 pm



Quoting Queso (Thread starter):
just play by the rules and nobody gets hurt

Oh the irony.

Quoting DC10extender (Reply 21):
All I can say is you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

I doubt the ZOG will even wait till they're cold.  Smile

Quoting DL021 (Reply 60):
I agree that the most cherished right involves living..... living as a free person who's rights are as unimpinged as they can be.

I think this is where I see the difference between my point of view and those of the gun-fetishists. I don't see that not being allowed to own a gun is an infringement of my rights at all. I don't have the right to kill people, and therefore I don't need a gun. Why own an item whose sole purpose is to kill (and this is an undeniable fact), if the law prevents you from using it as the manufacturer intended ? Yes I recognise that exemptions must be made for people who live in areas where their lives or livestock may be endangered by predators, or who need to hunt to survive. But these areas are fairly easy to designate, and very few of us actually live like that.

I'm perfectly happy for the only people legally permiited to carry firearms to be the police and armed forces. I've never in my entire life been threatened with a firearm, and I put this down mostly to the general unavailability of firearms where I've lived (except in SA, where I put it down to a bloody miracle, but that's beside the point).

Quoting Toast (Reply 70):
In the name of liberty, gun ownership should be legal, 2nd amendment or not.
2. Gun ownership should be very tightly controlled. No undocumented second-hand sales. Plus, no gun fairs. No need to encourage this phenomenon, which IMO is already way out of hand. Furthermore, no concealed carry laws should exist anywhere.

Just throwing a thought out there. In NC, for example, you can only purchase hard liquor from an ABC government store. Could the same not be made true for firearms and (more importantly) ammunition ? That way it would be legal, but controlled.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:50 pm



Quoting DL021 (Reply 232):
The right to self defence includes your property.

And the defense of third persons... IE, who ever the robber was threatening with the gun. Thankfully, not everyone here thinks we live in a society where you should just keep walking if you see someone in need.

Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 233):
you only have to look at how many people have been murdered needlessly because a couple of hicks in the South feel more secure when they have a gun in their jackets,

Nice. Real nice. First post on A.net and you have already managed to call one hundred and fifty million people "a couple of hicks in the south."

Good show.

Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 233):
I can see the point of protecting yourself from certain governments (say if a dictatorship rose) but with the media analysing every politicians operation in the US I can't see this happening anytime soon.

Just like the media kept 'ol Hugo under control?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 234):
I don't have the right to kill people,...

Yes you do... unless you believe that self defense isn't a basic human right.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 234):
Why own an item whose sole purpose is to kill (and this is an undeniable fact),

An undeniably wrong fact as evidenced by the complete and total lack of fatalities at either of the A.net shooting meets despite thousands or rounds being sent down range. In fact, I don't remember any fatalities during any of the Olympic biathlons either.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 234):
But these areas are fairly easy to designate, and very few of us actually live like that.

You've never been to the US have you? Or should I say, to the US outside of NYC or LA? If you would, could you come on down here to Texas and point out for us where the country ends and the city begins?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 234):
I'm perfectly happy for the only people legally permitted to carry firearms to be the police and armed forces

You do know that police officers have the some of the highest suicide and alcoholism rates of anyone right?

And you think they should be the only people trusted with guns?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 234):
In NC, for example, you can only purchase hard liquor from an ABC government store. Could the same not be made true for firearms and (more importantly) ammunition ? That way it would be legal, but controlled.

Worst idea ever. Seriously, the whole point of the 2A is to keep the government from having control of the citizens guns. Making the government the sole provider of said guns would be the exact opposite purpose of the 2A.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:17 am



Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 233):
I can see the point of protecting yourself from certain governments (say if a dictatorship rose) but with the media analysing every politicians operation in the US I can't see this happening anytime soon.

What about the ability to protect myself and my loved ones when the police cannot?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 234):
I don't see that not being allowed to own a gun is an infringement of my rights at all. I don't have the right to kill people, and therefore I don't need a gun.

You don't have the right to kill someone? So - if someone invades your home with the intent to rob, rape and kill all occupants inside, you are powerless to stop them?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 234):
Just throwing a thought out there. In NC, for example, you can only purchase hard liquor from an ABC government store. Could the same not be made true for firearms and (more importantly) ammunition ?

Sure you could. But you are missing the plain fact that criminals won't shop at the local state guns and ammo store, so what's the point?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:31 am



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 235):
You've never been to the US have you? Or should I say, to the US outside of NYC or LA? If you would, could you come on down here to Texas and point out for us where the country ends and the city begins?

I go to the US on average 4 times a year, and not to NYC and DEFINITELY not to LA. I spend most of my time in North Carolina and Colorado, and yes I have been to Texas. Don't you have speed limit laws for "built-up areas" ? Surely any "built up area" would qualify as a "no grizzly bear" area, or at least an area where a city/town is able to provide animal control service. There are ways to create these kinds of definitions.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 235):
Worst idea ever. Seriously, the whole point of the 2A is to keep the government from having control of the citizens guns. Making the government the sole provider of said guns would be the exact opposite purpose of the 2A.

No the whole point of 2A was to provide for a well-armed and well-regulated militia. Since the role of the militia has now been taken over (or usurped, according to another point of view) by the police, the National Guard, and the Federal armed services, this amendment is no longer relevant. It should be replaced by a better-worded alternative that makes very clear the rights and responsiblilities associated to gun ownership. Or else bring back the "militia" element to it ie. if you wish to own a gun you have a minimum service commitment to civil-defense (not law enforcement, as this was never the role of the militia).
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:38 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 237):
Quoting MDorBust (Reply 235):
Worst idea ever. Seriously, the whole point of the 2A is to keep the government from having control of the citizens guns. Making the government the sole provider of said guns would be the exact opposite purpose of the 2A.

No the whole point of 2A was to provide for a well-armed and well-regulated militia

In your opinion that is the point, of course.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will decide that question for us.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
ORFflyer
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:42 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:13 pm



Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 233):
Gun control should have been introduced in the US decades ago, you only have to look at how many people have been murdered needlessly because a couple of hicks in the South feel more secure when they have a gun in their jackets,

Well gee whiz Billy-Bob - we certainly don't want them thar city-slickers getting all of our grits would we.......  Yeah sure

What an idiotic first post.

Welcome to A-Net nonetheless.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:33 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 237):
I spend most of my time in North Carolina and Colorado, and yes I have been to Texas.

Then you would know for certain, especially in Colorado and Texas that urban and rural are not far seperated at all, and not always easily distinguished. Take for example me driving from my home in Lewisville (a very urban area) to downtown Fort Worth (another very urban area). I'll drive through urban lewisville, urban Flower Mound, BFE no where and into Fort Worth, all without leaving the heavily populated D/FW Metroplex. Yes, there are working farms and ranches right in the middle of urban D/FW. I know good dove hunting spots within a ten minute drive of my home. How exactly are you going to be defining urban and rural areas for the allowance of gun ownership when the urban and rural are intermixed?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 237):
No the whole point of 2A was to provide for a well-armed and well-regulated militia.

And part of the job of the militia is to keep the government in check.

Remember that little war right before the 2A was written in which the militia overthrew the standing government?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 237):
Since the role of the militia has now been taken over (or usurped, according to another point of view) by the police, the National Guard, and the Federal armed services,

All three branches of the government disagree with you. All have plainly stated at one time or another since the inception of the National Guard that the Guard is not the Constitutional militia.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 237):
Or else bring back the "militia" element to it ie.

The "militia" has never left. It has just never been called. Please go back and read the thread now, this has already been discussed.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:35 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 238):
In your opinion that is the point, of course

Not just my opinion - it says so right there in the text. "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."

Unfortunately it's not crystal clear - probably because it was completely obvious to the original drafters what it meant, but as times have changed and this type of militia activity has fallen into abeyance, the meaning has become less obvious. Seems to me though that if it was simply a statement about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", they wouldn't have added the qualifier about "A well regulated militia" to explain why.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:12 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 241):
Not just my opinion -



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 240):
Please go back and read the thread now, this has already been discussed.



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 194):



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 199):

"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:15 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 241):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 238):
In your opinion that is the point, of course

Not just my opinion - it says so right there in the text. "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."

If the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals agreed, the current DC case wouldn't be on the docket, now would it?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 241):
Seems to me though that if it was simply a statement about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", they wouldn't have added the qualifier about "A well regulated militia" to explain why.

Well, a lot of very intelligent Constitutional scholars (not me, mind you) don't share your opinion. Hope that is OK with you!
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:17 pm



Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 233):
Gun control should have been introduced in the US decades ago, you only have to look at how many people have been murdered needlessly because a couple of hicks in the South feel more secure when they have a gun in their jackets, We have to look at the mainstream here guys.

Yeah....the mainstream here includes having rights and defending them. Oh, and speaking as one of the millions of "hicks" in the south, I'd like to point out htat many in the north feel strongly about their firearms rights as well. Perhaps you could find a better way to describe your feelings there. It'd be as if I referred to you as some ignorant and asinine chav for being as uncultured and rude as you were. I wouldn't do that here, probably, but that's a good example of how your post came across. Just a friendly comment.

Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 233):
My first post on A.Net, woop woop!

Congratulations. Try posting without being unnecessarily offensive and you'll find this to be alot of fun.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 234):
Yes I recognise that exemptions must be made for people who live in areas where their lives or livestock may be endangered by predators, or who need to hunt to survive. But these areas are fairly easy to designate, and very few of us actually live like that.

All of us who live in proximity to other humans can be considered to live in some danger or another from other humans, who are territorial and predatory animals if such creatures ever existed.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 234):
I think this is where I see the difference between my point of view and those of the gun-fetishists. I don't see that not being allowed to own a gun is an infringement of my rights at all. I don't have the right to kill people

I disagree with you, and resent being called a "gun fetishist". My fetishes run in a different line.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 235):
Yes you do... unless you believe that self defense isn't a basic human right.

I'd like you to answer this question. Because you do have the right to employ deadly force in self-defence no matter what country you live in (I'd like to know if I'm wrong on that).

Why should I be limited to a fair fight if I'm being attacked with a knife or a club?
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:20 pm



Quoting DL021 (Reply 244):
Quoting MDorBust (Reply 235):
Yes you do... unless you believe that self defense isn't a basic human right.

I'd like you to answer this question. Because you do have the right to employ deadly force in self-defence no matter what country you live in (I'd like to know if I'm wrong on that).

Why should I be limited to a fair fight if I'm being attacked with a knife or a club?

Several of the gun control advocates have been asked this question, and none of them to date have answered it.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:40 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 245):

Several of the gun control advocates have been asked this question, and none of them to date have answered it

because it undermines their fundamental point to answer this question honestly....

many people look at the people who demand their rights as folks interested in looking "macho" or overzealous. The same crowd that has banned front end metal brushguards in the UK is the same crowd that will work to justify the removal of firearms to spite the people that own them more than anything. They seek to bring about the inheritance of the earth to the meek more quickly.

One more form of lateral class warfare.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:03 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 243):
Well, a lot of very intelligent Constitutional scholars (not me, mind you) don't share your opinion. Hope that is OK with you!

I wonder what they base their arguments on. It says quite clearly (to paraphrase) - "In order to ensure that the Militia, which we consider necessary to the survival of the state, be adequately provisioned with weapons, citizens will have the right to keep and bear arms."

Now that there is no longer a legally established militia, the wording should be revisited. Were there at the time the Constitution was drafted, laws on the statute books of the individual states (or in Federal law) establishing militias and the duty of the citizen to serve ? Are these laws still on the books ? If so, then it makes sense. If not, then it doesn't.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:06 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 247):
Now that there is no longer a legally established militia, the wording should be revisited. Were there at the time the Constitution was drafted, laws on the statute books of the individual states (or in Federal law) establishing militias and the duty of the citizen to serve ? Are these laws still on the books ? If so, then it makes sense. If not, then it doesn't.

OK...so stop arguing semantics (as important as they may be) and answer the earlier question. Do you have the right to take a life?
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:14 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 247):
Now that there is no longer a legally established militia,

Incorrect.

http://www.ak-prepared.com/asdf/

There is also an Alaska Naval Militia . . . authorized by State Law.

[Edited 2008-01-07 09:16:36]
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: c933103, Elgorou and 36 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos