Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
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 5:17 pm



Quoting DL021 (Reply 248):
Do you have the right to take a life?

According to every moral principle ever established in the known universe, no I don't have that right. I have the right to defend myself, but does that amount automatically to the right to use deadly force ? No. It amounts to the right to use "appropriate" force. If someone attacks me with a kipper, I can't shoot them, even a bit. If someone shoots at me, it would be appropriate to use a firearm in an attempt to prevent them from continuing to do so. To just go and blow their head off regardless is inappropriate. I'm not saying I would necessarily have the skill or ability to do either, but it is important that the reaction be appropriate to the threat posed.
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 5:19 pm



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



Quoting DL021 (Reply 248):
OK...so stop arguing semantics

He's not even arguing semantics. He's just plain wrong. The Constitutional militia has never expired nor been replaced. It can not expire or be replaced as long as there are American citizens, as the America citizens are the Constitutional militia. Eventually JGPH1A may get around to reading the actual court cases which cite the very words of the Constitutional authors who wrote the 2A and realize he's arguing down a dead end. It's in this thread.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
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 5:21 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 250):
According to every moral principle ever established in the known universe, no I don't have that right.



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 250):
If someone shoots at me, it would be appropriate to use a firearm in an attempt to prevent them from continuing to do so.

Way to argue in a circle.

First you say that you don't have the right, then a couple lines later you say you do have the right...

Which one is it?

[Edited 2008-01-07 09:22:54]
"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 5:24 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 247):
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."

 rotfl  Do you realize just how many tens of thousands of federal court cases on the books interpreting what appears to be "clear" language of the Constitution?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 247):
Now that there is no longer a legally established militia, the wording should be revisited.

That's why we have a Supreme Court and amendment process.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 250):
I have the right to defend myself, but does that amount automatically to the right to use deadly force ? No

That isn't the question. We aren't asking a question of proportionality. We are asking if you believe that you have the right to prevent another person from taking your life by killing ther person who is trying to kill you.
"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 6:29 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 252):
Way to argue in a circle.

First you say that you don't have the right, then a couple lines later you say you do have the right...

Which one is it?

I only have the right to defend myself by whatever means are appropriate. That doesn't mean that in every circumstance I have the right to drop him in his tracks. The right to self-defense does not confer automatically the right to kill in every instance. It is a question of proportional response.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 253):
Do you realize just how many tens of thousands of federal court cases on the books interpreting what appears to be "clear" language of the Constitution?

Can I help it if the people reading the Constitution are unable to interpret what is in the case of the second amendment at least, blindingly obvious ?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 251):
The Constitutional militia has never expired nor been replaced. It can not expire or be replaced as long as there are American citizens, as the America citizens are the Constitutional militia. Eventually JGPH1A may get around to reading the actual court cases which cite the very words of the Constitutional authors who wrote the 2A and realize he's arguing down a dead end. It's in this thread.

Is there such a thing as the "Constitutional Militia" - is this a legally constituted body enshrined somewhere in law ? Or just something invented to give substance to the use of the term "Militia" as included in the second amendment ? I certainly see no reference to a "Constitutional Militia" in the text of the second amendment. It refers quite clearly to bodies of citizens organised along military lines for the defence of their country against attack, as was customary at the time. That's what "militia" means.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

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

Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:30 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 250):
According to every moral principle ever established in the known universe, no I don't have that right.

How can you make such an absurd (not to mention patently incorrect) statement? You claim to know the moral principles of all societies and other bands of human beings that have ever existed? Well, even if you do, you're still incorrect because I say you do and that's my moral principle.
 
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 6:31 pm



Quoting Queso (Reply 255):
Well, even if you do, you're still incorrect because I say you do and that's my moral principle.

That would be an immoral principle then  Smile
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
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 6:35 pm

Let us mind our manners herein Gents, lest I lock this thread.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
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 6:35 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 254):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 253):
Do you realize just how many tens of thousands of federal court cases on the books interpreting what appears to be "clear" language of the Constitution?

Can I help it if the people reading the Constitution are unable to interpret what is in the case of the second amendment at least, blindingly obvious ?

So - every other Constitutional scholar is an idiot, and only you understand the Constitutiton?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 253):
Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 250):
I have the right to defend myself, but does that amount automatically to the right to use deadly force ? No

That isn't the question. We aren't asking a question of proportionality. We are asking if you believe that you have the right to prevent another person from taking your life by killing ther person who is trying to kill you.

Why won't you answer this very simple question?
"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

Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:42 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 256):
That would be an immoral principle then

Maybe immoral to you, but not to me because they are my morals.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 257):
Let us mind our manners herein Gents, lest I lock this thread.

Thanks for the warning. We're probably close to needing to lock this one and move along to Part 2 pretty soon anyway.
 
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 6:45 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 254):
I only have the right to defend myself by whatever means are appropriate. That doesn't mean that in every circumstance I have the right to drop him in his tracks. The right to self-defense does not confer automatically the right to kill in every instance. It is a question of proportional response.

That has never been questioned.

The question was if you had the right to apply the ultimate level of force when it was necessary.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 254):
Is there such a thing as the "Constitutional Militia"

Yes

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 254):
is this a legally constituted body enshrined somewhere in law ?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 254):
Or just something invented to give substance to the use of the term "Militia" as included in the second amendment ?

It's rather difficult for the Constitution to "invent" support for itself. It is what it is.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 254):
It refers quite clearly to bodies of citizens organised along military lines for the defence of their country against attack, as was customary at the time. That's what "militia" means.

That is what you want "militia" to mean. That is not what any of the founding fathers thought it meant, nor what any of the courts that have followed the founding fathers thought the founding fathers meant. The Constitutional militia is every person of the United States able to respond to a call to arms with weapons of their own providing. This is the definition used by the founding fathers. Your definition is irrelevant.
"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 6:47 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 258):
So - every other Constitutional scholar is an idiot, and only you understand the Constitutiton?

No, every Constitutional scholar has their own interpretation. I am not a Constitutional scholar, I just read what it says and draw my own conclusions. From what I have read elsewhere (briefly), there is still no clear and final legal position on the relationship that the militia has with the right to keep and bear arms; this surprises me, because a straightforward reading of the text renders the relationship explicit.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 258):
Why won't you answer this very simple question?

I did answer it. Morally I do not have the right to kill anyone, however in self-defence, legally I do. It is not a right I relish nor have any wish to exercise.
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 6:54 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 261):
From what I have read elsewhere (briefly), there is still no clear and final legal position on the relationship that the militia has with the right to keep and bear arms; this surprises me, because a straightforward reading of the text renders the relationship explicit

The necessary level of relationship and participation in the militia has already been clarified by the courst, and that decision is in this thread. Please, go back and read the relevant posts before continuing on this line. This has already been covered with referances to the cases and direct quotes from the authors of the 2A. There is no ambiguity on this point. It is not open for debate. All American citizens are part of the militia. They are expected to privately own arms in case the militia is called up. They do not need to be active in the militia to own arms. That is it. It has been long decided. The question of the militia has been settled long ago.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

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

Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:08 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 253):
Do you realize just how many tens of thousands of federal court cases on the books interpreting what appears to be "clear" language of the Constitution?

Halls, I hope your friends-in-belief on this thread read this sentence and grasp its full meaning. Even though the phrase "right to bear arms" appears in the Constitution, it is the province of the courts to determine what exactly that means -- even if it appears to be clear. And as I've said before, the Supreme Court has come down hard on people hiding behind an alleged constitutional protection, and held those protections not to be absolute.
 
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 7:40 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 261):
Morally I do not have the right to kill anyone, however in self-defence, legally I do. It is not a right I relish nor have any wish to exercise.

Understand. BTW, I don't know anyone who does relish the right to kill someone in self defense. I don't. But I don't want the State - who cannot protect me 7/24 - to take away my right to exercise self defense.

And I don't understand why so many of my fellow citizens are so eager to take away that right.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

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

Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:42 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 264):
And I don't understand why so many of my fellow citizens are so eager to take away that right

And what will they take away after that?

God help us.
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
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 8:13 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 260):
Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 254):
Is there such a thing as the "Constitutional Militia"

Yes

I looked it up too. It doesn't appear to be anything other than a group of pro-gun activists propogating the "individual" right option (as opposed to the "collective" right option). Not actually a legally constituted militia at all.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 262):
This has already been covered with referances to the cases and direct quotes from the authors of the 2A. There is no ambiguity on this point. It is not open for debate. All American citizens are part of the militia. They are expected to privately own arms in case the militia is called up. They do not need to be active in the militia to own arms. That is it. It has been long decided. The question of the militia has been settled long ago.

It most certainly is open for debate. To which federal statute do you refer when you state that " All American citizens are part of the militia. They are expected to privately own arms in case the militia is called up. They do not need to be active in the militia to own arms." Is this an actual law ? Or just an interpretation ? What happens if (by some miracle) every single American citizen declines to "keep and bear arms" - would they be forced by the Federal authorities to do so ? The answer, I'm pretty sure, is "no". So where does this leave the "militia" ?
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

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

Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:14 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 266):
I looked it up too. It doesn't appear to be anything other than a group of pro-gun activists propogating the "individual" right option (as opposed to the "collective" right option). Not actually a legally constituted militia at all.

Can you please please provide the definition of the "militia" as you believe it to be?
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
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 8:17 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 266):
I looked it up too. It doesn't appear to be anything other than a group of pro-gun activists propogating the "individual" right option (as opposed to the "collective" right option). Not actually a legally constituted militia at all.

Blew right by this didn't you . . . . .

Maybe a read here would help you out.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 249):

FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

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

Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:23 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 264):
And I don't understand why so many of my fellow citizens are so eager to take away that right.

I'm generally on the side of gun control, but I am with you on this point. I would ask, however, that some of your fellow gun rights supporters recognize that gun control doesn't have to mean that your rights are taken away. If done properly, it puts reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right, just as the government has attempted to do with every other rights issue in the Constitution/Bill of Rights (albeit with varying degrees of success).
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
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 8:27 pm



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 267):
Can you please please provide the definition of the "militia" as you believe it to be?

I did already...

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 254):
It refers quite clearly to bodies of citizens organised along military lines for the defence of their country against attack, as was customary at the time. That's what "militia" means.

The militia was a means whereby ordinary citizens were "drafted" in time of war. It's essentially a feudal concept, whereby each tenant owed his lord certain service, including possibly military service, if required, and was required to equip himself in order to participate. In England in the Middle Ages, there was even a legal requirement that each able-bodied man participate in archery practise on a regular basis, to maintain their skill. Even in the late 18th century, militias were a device to raise armed men in times of national emergency to participate in the common defence, for example during threats of invasion.

From the Oxford English dictionary:

militia
/milish/

• noun 1 a military force raised from the civilian population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. 2 a rebel force opposing a regular army.

— ORIGIN Latin, ‘military service’.
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 8:27 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 266):
I looked it up too. It doesn't appear to be anything other than a group of pro-gun activists propogating the "individual" right option (as opposed to the "collective" right option).

The SCOTUS is a "group of pro-gun activists propogating the "individual" right option"? Well gee, never heard that before...

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 266):
To which federal statute do you refer when you state that

Please read the thread. This material has already been covered. And has very recently been pointed too.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 266):
Is this an actual law ?

The words of the people who wrote the Constitution.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 266):
Or just an interpretation

We call the Judicial Opinions.. but yes, it has been that too.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 266):
What happens if (by some miracle) every single American citizen declines to "keep and bear arms"

Then you would have a really pathetic militia.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
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 8:32 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 270):

Still missing this aren't you . . . .

On puspose?  eyebrow 

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 268):

FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
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 8:38 pm



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 249):
http://www.ak-prepared.com/asdf/

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

OK - interesting. Are the members of this outfit expected to arm themselves ? I looked at the recommended equipment list and it mentions "pistol and holster". Is it an actual military unit ? The site says it acts as an Alaska state police agency. How does this gel with the notion of "posse comitatus" ?
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
tuiflyer
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:26 pm

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

Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:18 am



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 235):

Thank you!

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 236):
What about the ability to protect myself and my loved ones when the police cannot?

Like who?

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 239):
Well gee whiz Billy-Bob - we certainly don't want them thar city-slickers getting all of our grits would we.......

What an idiotic first post.

Welcome to A-Net nonetheless.

I wanted my first post to cause some fireworks and it looks to have achieved this. Believe me I do not intend to offend Southerners or 'hicks' and I apologise for using such a lazy stereotype but I just don't understand why a 'right' which causes more harm than good is so important.

Is it just a power or masculinity thing?

TUIflyer
Don't just travel, travel with a smile. . .
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

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

Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:33 am



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 261):
I did answer it. Morally I do not have the right to kill anyone, however in self-defence, legally I do. It is not a right I relish nor have any wish to exercise.

But the desire to not exercise a right doesn't negate it for everyone else. Nor does it eliminate your right.

Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 274):
Believe me I do not intend to offend Southerners or 'hicks' and I apologise for using such a lazy stereotype but I just don't understand why a 'right' which causes more harm than good is so important.

The right is. It does no harm...only people do harm. They'll do it without firearms, and if the right is removed the criminals, who act out of bounds anyway will be the only ones carrrying them.

Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 274):
Is it just a power or masculinity thing?

This is another easy answer to help you deride people who choose to exercise their rights.
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

Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:41 am



Quoting DL021 (Reply 275):
This is another easy answer to help you deride people who choose to exercise their rights.

The people who get killed and maimed as a result of this 'right' also have rights.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 275):
deride people who choose to exercise their rights.

I am not trying to deride anyone, I am trying to deride this idiotic law. The evidence is clear, countries where obtaining guns is illegal or more difficult have lower shooting, gun related crime and murder rates: FACT.

TUIflyer
Don't just travel, travel with a smile. . .
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

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

Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:53 am



Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 276):
The people who get killed and maimed as a result of this 'right' also have rights.

Those people are killed or maimed by criminals who would more than likely be able to source the weapons anyway. Are you saying law abiding citizens should not be able to have them, or have you not considered that the weapons are out there and by trying to confiscate them an entire new class of criminals will be created?

Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 276):
I am not trying to deride anyone, I am trying to deride this idiotic law. The evidence is clear, countries where obtaining guns is illegal or more difficult have lower shooting, gun related crime and murder rates: FACT.

OK....just so you know it seemed like you were deriding people with the namecalling and the snide remarks asking when did people who own firearms stop beating their wives.

Take a step back and consider that this thread was fairly free from unnecessary pettiness. We can agree to disagree agreeably if you like.
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

Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:07 am



Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 274):
I just don't understand why a 'right' which causes more harm than good is so important.

Incorrect.

Wow, you really ARE new here, aren't you?
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

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

Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:46 am



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 269):
gun control doesn't have to mean that your rights are taken away

There is enough "control" now. The government knows who is buying what; that is if you are a law abiding citizen. And in all honesty, this does not apply to legal sales between individuals, only dealers to individuals. You are required to wait several days to take possession of your firearm, unless you have a CWP. You cannot make a machine gun. In certain states you cannot have certain firearms, because they look like an assault weapon. There's plenty of control, and that is the way it should stay.

On another note, I was at the range Sunday, and there was a couple of people with machine guns. The notion that a machine gun is more lethal is one I find hilarious. At 65 yards, a four round burst spanned 20 feet on the berm. The point I am trying to make is that the hood rats that want full auto couldn't hit water if they fell out of a boat. The spray an pray mentality only gets innocent people hurt. There is no substitute for accuracy.
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
ORFflyer
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:42 am

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

Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:08 pm



Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 274):
Believe me I do not intend to offend Southerners or 'hicks' and I apologise for using such a lazy stereotype

Fair enough. Back-peddling, but you're new, so you get the benefit of the doubt.

Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 274):
but I just don't understand why a 'right' which causes more harm than good is so important.

More harm than good is only your opinion.

Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 274):
Is it just a power or masculinity thing?

Back to the "lazy stereotype" sniveling again.....

Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 276):
The people who get killed and maimed as a result of this 'right' also have rights.

Nope - they lost them when they tried to harm me and/or my family. They now earned a right to have a chunk of lead pumped into their sorry ass.

Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 276):
The evidence is clear,

Only in your opinion.
 
tuiflyer
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:26 pm

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

Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:16 pm



Quoting DL021 (Reply 277):
asking when did people who own firearms stop beating their wives.

Can you find where I said this?

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 280):
They now earned a right to have a chunk of lead pumped into their sorry ass.

What these people do is wrong, but exactly how do they get punished and have time to think about what they've done. if you think about it, the people who commit these crimes know very well what the likely punishment is in the US for murder so they don't care about been lethally injected. They would probably find been stuck in prison for the rest of their life much more distressing.

Quoting Queso (Reply 278):
Incorrect.

It is easy enough to say 'Incorrect,' what evidence do you have to support this statement?

TUIflyer
Don't just travel, travel with a smile. . .
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

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

Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:30 pm



Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 274):
I just don't understand why a 'right' which causes more harm than good is so important.



Quoting Queso (Reply 278):
Incorrect.



Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 281):
It is easy enough to say 'Incorrect,' what evidence do you have to support this statement?

No Bubba, (I'm one of those "hicks in the South" you were talking about) you're the one who made the original assertion so the burden of proof is on you to support your assertion that the right to bear arms "causes more harm than good". You're pushing an old, tired argument that has been but to rest MANY times here in the non-av gun control threads.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

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

Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:30 pm



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 273):
Is it an actual military unit ?

Yes, you should see that as the link shows them under the State Department of Military andVeterans Affairs.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 273):
How does this gel with the notion of "posse comitatus" ?

Doesn't apply. Read up on that. It only applies to FEDERAL troops, not state - including the National Guard. NGR 500-1 and NGR 500-2 (I helped author 500-2) apply in this case.

Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 276):
The people who get killed and maimed as a result of this 'right' also have rights.

NOT if they've illegally entered my home or intend to cause harm to me or my family. I'll take 'em out, right now . . . and feel no remorse at all . . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

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

Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:22 am



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 269):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 264):
And I don't understand why so many of my fellow citizens are so eager to take away that right.

I'm generally on the side of gun control, but I am with you on this point. I would ask, however, that some of your fellow gun rights supporters recognize that gun control doesn't have to mean that your rights are taken away. If done properly, it puts reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right, just as the government has attempted to do with every other rights issue in the Constitution/Bill of Rights (albeit with varying degrees of success).

In the District of Colombia, citizens have had their Second Amendment rights taken away. I do not wish for that situation to expand, and if the Supreme Court decides that the Second Amendment does not include an individual right - subject to reasonable regulation, of course - the only people who will be armed are the police and criminals.
"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

Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:29 am



Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 281):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 277):
asking when did people who own firearms stop beating their wives.

Can you find where I said this?

It was not a quote.....I've had some experience with this lately, so let me be clear.....it was an ironic turn of phrase common when someone asks a question based on a flawed premise designed so that any answer given is incriminating.

You asked

Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 274):
Is it just a power or masculinity thing?

which leaves no other option for a reasonable answer. if one or the other is selected here then it's the same as asking 'when do you plan on stopping the wifebeating?'

Now...if it was all one piece left openended for other alternative answers then it's just that you're assuming that it's all about power or masculinity which is itself somewhat insulting. You're insinuating with this question, it appears, that it's the firearm that lends masculinity and power. And you're wrong.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
ORFflyer
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:42 am

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

Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:53 am



Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 281):
but exactly how do they get punished

Being on the receiving end of a couple well placed shots. You see, gun control is being able to hit what you aim at.

Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 281):
They would probably find been stuck in prison for the rest of their life much more distressing.

Then they're fine with me pumping them full of lead so they don't face that prospect.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 285):
Quoting TUIflyer (Reply 274):Is it just a power or masculinity thing?
which leaves no other option for a reasonable answer. if one or the other is selected here then it's the same as asking 'when do you plan on stopping the wifebeating?'

Now...if it was all one piece left openended for other alternative answers then it's just that you're assuming that it's all about power or masculinity which is itself somewhat insulting. You're insinuating with this question, it appears, that it's the firearm that lends masculinity and power. And you're wrong.

 checkmark 
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

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

Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:48 pm

The gun control legislation that was passed in Washington, D.C. was supposed to make the city safer. The city has a very high homicide rate, which would lead one to believe that Gun Control DOESN'T WORK!

Interesting tid-bit, one of the founders of what was to become HCI had purchased a rifle to discredit the NRA, brought the rifle to his home in DC. This was after the legislation was in effect, and if you had a long gun, it could not be assembled. He was never prosecuted. Can anyone say double standard?
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

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

Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:08 pm



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 287):
The gun control legislation that was passed in Washington, D.C. was supposed to make the city safer. The city has a very high homicide rate, which would lead one to believe that Gun Control DOESN'T WORK!

Only if you ignore the fact that gun crime has gone down. Think about how much worse it would be if handguns were legal.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

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

Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:51 pm



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 287):
The city has a very high homicide rate, which would lead one to believe that Gun Control DOESN'T WORK!

Not only does the city have a very high homicide rate, but homicide in DC actually spiked after the strict gun control laws went into effect.

DC put it's strict gun control laws into effect in 1976. At that time the murder rate was 26.8. A decade later in 1986 it was 31.0. Only one year in between saw a murder rate lower than the 1976 base. In 1991 it spiked at just over three times the rate from when the ban started at an astonishing 80.6.. A full fifteen years after the ban went into effect. 2006 marked the thirtieth year of the ban... and still, ONLY 1985 had a lower murder rate than when the ban went into effect in 1976.

Data:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

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

Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:25 am

San Francisco gets reminded of the 2A: Gun ban struck down by appeals court.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=10468
"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 11, 2008 1:33 am



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 290):
San Francisco gets reminded of the 2A: Gun ban struck down by appeals court.

Everybody with more than half a brain cell in their head knew that would happen. San Francisco's leaders were monumentally stupid to think that law was going to be upheld.
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

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

Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:57 pm



Quoting Queso (Reply 291):
San Francisco's leaders were monumentally stupid to think that law was going to be upheld.

They thought they could get away with it.
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

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

Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:48 pm

Couple of quotes for a Monday:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

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

Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:59 pm



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 293):
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

A very interesting quote. A quote which undermines the argument that since we have a National Guard, that is the militia referred to in the 2A.
"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

Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:18 pm

NRA released an interesting statement today, my comments at the bottom.

Press release, no copyright.

"Statement of the National Rifle Association
By Wayne LaPierre And Chris Cox
On The Pending U.S. Supreme Court Case
In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in law-abiding residents' homes. The Court will first address the question of whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, protects the rights of individuals or a right of the government. If the Court agrees that this is an individual right, they will then determine if D.C.'s self-defense and handgun bans are constitutional.

The position of the National Rifle Association is clear. The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, any law infringing this freedom, including a ban on self-defense and handgun ownership, is unconstitutional and provides no benefit to curbing crime. Rather, these types of restrictions only leave the law-abiding more susceptible to criminal attack.

The U.S. Government, through its Solicitor General, has filed an amicus brief in this case. We applaud the government's recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is "central to the preservation of liberty." The brief also correctly recognizes that the D.C. statutes ban "a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice," the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia, is not restricted to service in a militia and secures the natural right of self-defense.

However, the government's position is also that a "heightened" level of judicial scrutiny should be applied to these questions. The National Rifle Association believes that the Court should use the highest level of scrutiny in reviewing the D.C. gun ban. We further believe a complete ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in one's own home does not pass ANY level of judicial scrutiny. Even the government agrees that "the greater the scope of the prohibition and its impact on private firearm possession, the more difficult it will be to defend under the Second Amendment." A complete ban is the kind of infringement that is the greatest in scope. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit correctly ruled that D.C.'s statutes are unconstitutional. We strongly believe the ruling should be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The National Rifle Association will be filing an amicus brief in this case and will provide additional information to our members as this case moves through the legal process."

++++++++++++++++++

This will be a grand opportunity for Ginsberg, Breyer and maybe Souter to make morons out of themselves.
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

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

Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:55 pm



Quoting Queso (Reply 295):
In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in law-abiding residents' homes.

So what happens if the SC rules in favor of the making the ban unconstitutional?
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

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

Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:12 pm



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 296):
So what happens if the SC rules in favor of the making the ban unconstitutional?

Hell, it won't change anything. SanFran and other cities will still pass idiotic laws and wait for someone with the money to contest them before they're overturned.

On the other hand, won't it be nice if there's a HUGE wave of citizens going to legally buy handguns for protection and the crime rate in DC plummets! Watch for it if the ban is overturned because that is the pattern which has occurred after CCW laws pass.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

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

Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:35 pm



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 296):
So what happens if the SC rules in favor of the making the ban unconstitutional?

San Frans ban was just overturned, so there won't be much action there. However, I would expect lawsuits to spring up in NY and Chicago against their bans if those cities governments aren't smart enough to strike them down when the court declares them to be unconstitutional. That's where DC screwed up. If they hadn't appealed the case it would have just applied to DC. If the SCOTUS declares this type of ban to be unconstitutional, it's a national ruling. Bloomberg has to be pissing his diapers right now.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
lobster
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:03 pm

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

Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:04 pm









Nuff Said. Now run along and go play in the road liberal take my gun away weenies.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: c933103, casinterest, OA412, par13del and 31 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