RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cloudboy -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:43:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Gun owners are not a "special interest" nor have they anything to do with capitalists. They are not outside of the mainstream of America considering the numbers of people who own guns in this country. Lastly, do you believe we have the right to revoke rights of gays/blacks/bdsm/disabled people simply because they organize into a special interest lobby? You are too funny here. The NRA is without question a "special interest." Its 4M people setting policy for 250M people. Saying Gun owners have "nothing to do with capitalists" is also spurious, for it assumes gun owners self produce weapons in their basement as opposed to purchasing them on the open market. What's next, commuters don't have anything to do with capitalists even though they buy gas at the pump and autos from automobile manufacturers? Don't guns wound citizen's sending them to the hospital? Don't guns play a key role in criminal behavior? Don't guns play an often horrible role in domestic disputes? Who pays for these costs? (Society does.) Even if you don't consider them direct costs of gun ownership, they are at least indirect costs. Considering these costs, its a fairly indefensible position to argue that the US Gov't doesn't have a legitimate regulatory interest here; and the SECOND AMENDMENT, as worded, leaves abundant room for such regulation. So, I don't see how you can separate gun owners from Capitalism and the American marketplace. Your "gays/blacks/bdsm/disabled people" comparison is feeble-minded; how can you compare immutable human traits and qualities like sexual orientation, physical disabilities, and race to gun ownership? Gun owners are not a minority in the same sense as those minorities. Comparing immutable traits with elective ones is illogical; to wit: Criminalizing someone for being black or gay is a far cry from criminalizing someone who owns a 50 Caliber Machine Gun or a stinger missile assembly. quote: Or do you dislike it whenever it runs counter to how YOU would run the country? What I have a problem with is special interest lobbying that masquerades as legitimate, democratic public policy. It doesn't really matter what the issue is. The NRA is just a poster child example of this situation.

TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:00:44 PM)
quote: Don't guns wound citizen's sending them to the hospital? Don't guns play a key role in criminal behavior? Don't guns play an often horrible role in domestic disputes? Who pays for these costs? (Society does.) Even if you don't consider them direct costs of gun ownership, they are at least indirect costs. Do you think it's strange that law enforcement doesn't tend to follow that logic. Of course, they don't actually prevent crimes - they are more of a cleanup crew on violent crime calls since they arrive long after the fact - so maybe they see it a little different that you. Who pays these costs (you mean the cost for legally owning a gun)? Hmm.

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:07:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Gun owners are not a "special interest" nor have they anything to do with capitalists. They are not outside of the mainstream of America considering the numbers of people who own guns in this country. Lastly, do you believe we have the right to revoke rights of gays/blacks/bdsm/disabled people simply because they organize into a special interest lobby? You are too funny here. The NRA is without question a "special interest." Its 4M people setting policy for 250M people. Saying Gun owners have "nothing to do with capitalists" is also spurious, for it assumes gun owners self produce weapons in their basement as opposed to purchasing them on the open market. What's next, commuters don't have anything to do with capitalists even though they buy gas at the pump and autos from automobile manufacturers? Don't guns wound citizen's sending them to the hospital? Don't guns play a key role in criminal behavior? Don't guns play an often horrible role in domestic disputes? Who pays for these costs? (Society does.) Even if you don't consider them direct costs of gun ownership, they are at least indirect costs. Considering these costs, its a fairly indefensible position to argue that the US Gov't doesn't have a legitimate regulatory interest here; and the SECOND AMENDMENT, as worded, leaves abundant room for such regulation. So, I don't see how you can separate gun owners from Capitalism and the American marketplace. Your "gays/blacks/bdsm/disabled people" comparison is feeble-minded; how can you compare immutable human traits and qualities like sexual orientation, physical disabilities, and race to gun ownership? Gun owners are not a minority in the same sense as those minorities. Comparing immutable traits with elective ones is illogical; to wit: Criminalizing someone for being black or gay is a far cry from criminalizing someone who owns a 50 Caliber Machine Gun or a stinger missile assembly. quote: Or do you dislike it whenever it runs counter to how YOU would run the country? What I have a problem with is special interest lobbying that masquerades as legitimate, democratic public policy. It doesn't really matter what the issue is. The NRA is just a poster child example of this situation. Nice twist cloud boy. So someone fighting for our constitutional rights is a special interest group in your opinion huh? If guns are banned you bet thats exactly what gun owners would be doing, pipes, powder and rocks work pretty well. I suppose then we can make a case for buying powder? Guns play a greater domestic role in crime prevention. Governments have NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to regulate guns with ONE exception, and that is a man cannot bear while in jail and that sorta makes sense to me. It says that right shall not be infringed. Techincally felons are unlawfully being denied gun ownership like it or not. So in your mind upholding the constitution is illegitimate lobbying huh?

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:17:08 PM)
Moloch i too learned about comma's in grade school ,in middle school i learned about context.High school civics taught me that the Constitution is a living breathing document meant to be interpreted and evolve with the society.I could tell you what i learned in college but i don't want to give you a headache

Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:20:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Don't guns wound citizen's sending them to the hospital? Don't guns play a key role in criminal behavior? Don't guns play an often horrible role in domestic disputes? In a word, no. Guns are inanimate objects. I know you've heard that before, but apparently you miss the significance of the observation. Your reasoning employs "guns" as a symbol for all the mis-uses to which firearms can be put. That's an old Temperance Lady trick. K.

TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:21:12 PM)
quote: Moloch i too learned about comma's in grade school ,in middle school i learned about context.High school civics taught me that the Constitution is a living breathing document meant to be interpreted and evolve with the society. Do you mean because the 10 were ratified after the fact? Did you know that a lot of states wouldn't have signed on if they weren't already written ... and guaranteed to be ratified? I don't see the Constitution as being changeable at any generation's whim, and I'm very sure that was not the intent.

petdave -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:22:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u So gun owners will give up their guns only after criminals are disarmed.How does any intelligent person make this argument,the only way to get guns off the streets of America is to stop producing them in obscene amounts. While i wouldn't want to put words into the mouth (fingers) of the OP, such an argument is usually meant in sarcasm. What it implies is that once there's a perfect world, free from crime, i'll gladly hand over my firearm, because there will no longer be a need for me to protect myself. Make sure to look me up once we get to that point... i'll be out riding on my unicorn. As far as production and the vast gun industry conspiracy... uh, no. First, there are more than enough firearms in the U.S. for every man, woman, and child to have several. Second, while firearms are one of the few products that are still manufactured in the U.S. in any significant quantity, the manufacturers do not have the vast policy-shaping power that some seem to imagine. Remington is out of the handgun business. i think Winchester is only producing ammunition at this point. Ruger is very "pro-safety", and initiated a voluntary 10-round limit on all of their firearms. Smith & Wesson stopped civilian production altogether at one point, although i believe they're back in. Colt has significant production, but tend to focus on high-end stuff. They'll give up their military contracts when Hell freezes over, so they play whatever tune the .gov calls. Kel-Tec, Kahr, and Mossburg are fairly small potatoes. A large volume of handgun production- Glock, Taurus, Sig Sauer, Heckler & Koch, CZ- comes from outside the U.S.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:23:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I could tell you what i learned in college but i don't want to give you a headache Must resist urge...too...easy... Gah! [;)]

Aileen1968 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:24:08 PM)
fast reply All the people who don't want guns can gladly never own them. When the shit hits the fan don't come running to get protected by the smart ones who do own them.

TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:27:03 PM)
quote: Guns are inanimate objects. You can't say that. It takes all the fear away and makes the gun no more deadly than a rock. [;)]

celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:28:17 PM)
quote: Actually, I must pick a bone on that one: what do you mean, I don't have the right to an opinion ?! Exactly what I said. You do not have any right whatsoever to any opinion of any kind on my choice to possess firearms, or weapons of any kind. Put another way: It's none of your business. There is no opinion to state, there is no commentary to make. The right is absolute and shall not be infringed. There is no moderation of the right, no use of words such as "reasonable" or "warranted", no predicate for the right. It stands on its own, and thus beyond any and all scrutiny. With respect to the Second Amendment, that should be the beginning, middle, and end of the discussion, both here and before the Supreme Court.

TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:47:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Actually, I must pick a bone on that one: what do you mean, I don't have the right to an opinion ?! Exactly what I said. You do not have any right whatsoever to any opinion of any kind on my choice to possess firearms, or weapons of any kind. Well he has the right to have an opinion and the right to express that opinion. quote: Put another way: It's none of your business. Yep. What he doesn't have is the authority to tell you what to do regarding the subject. quote: There is no opinion to state, there is no commentary to make. The right is absolute and shall not be infringed. There is no moderation of the right, no use of words such as "reasonable" or "warranted", no predicate for the right. It stands on its own, and thus beyond any and all scrutiny. With respect to the Second Amendment, that should be the beginning, middle, and end of the discussion, both here and before the Supreme Court. That's how I see it too. I'm surprised it's even an issue ... and disturbed that it is an issue.

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:48:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 There is no opinion to state, there is no commentary to make. The right is absolute and shall not be infringed. There is no moderation of the right, no use of words such as "reasonable" or "warranted", no predicate for the right. It stands on its own, and thus beyond any and all scrutiny. With respect to the Second Amendment, that should be the beginning, middle, and end of the discussion, both here and before the Supreme Court. Bing Bang Slam Dunk right on target! Thee only thing the supreme court can do is subtract from that unconstitutionally! Everyone forgets that shall not be infringed part.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:49:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: colouredin FR Seems a lot of the argument as to why people should have a gun is "because its your right" because its written down, and those constitutions make you free, so in the UK where we arent allowed guns are we less free? Non sequitur. We are free not by the form in which our civil liberties are articulated, but by the content of those civil liberties In the United States, basic civil liberties are stated within the Constitution and its Amendments. Yet it is the liberties that make Americans a "free" people, not the Constitution. Similar liberties are reserved within the UK, albeit articulated in a different fashion. Those liberties make the British a "free" people. The debate over which amalgamation of civil liberties results in a more "free" people, while tantalizing and extremely fascinating, would be rather outside the scope of this thread's topic.

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:49:54 PM)
TracyTaken where were you when the Patriot Act was passed.If you have ever voted you have taken advantage of an amendment to that document

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:55:27 PM)
CelticLord you must be kidding the right is not absolute and has already been infinged.The Brady law infringed it years ago.Beyond any and all scrutiny what bullshit.there are a hundred different regulations and laws that unfortunately while infringing ownership obviously don't go far enough

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:56:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 In the United States, basic civil liberties are stated within the Constitution and its Amendments. Yet it is the liberties that make Americans a "free" people, not the Constitution. Similar liberties are reserved within the UK, albeit articulated in a different fashion. Those liberties make the British a "free" people. The debate over which amalgamation of civil liberties results in a more "free" people, while tantalizing and extremely fascinating, would be rather outside the scope of this thread's topic. We are not free by a long shot. Can you walk into a drugstore and say give me 30 pennicillin tabs? NO its all regulated. I self medicate and have to go across the pond to get what I need if not an emergency from what most consider a less free society. I would argue that in many ways 3rd world countries are more free than we are as we do have a despot government or we wou ld not even be having tis dicussion about guns in the first place.

TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:58:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u TracyTaken where were you when the Patriot Act was passed.If you have ever voted you have taken advantage of an amendment to that document You are talking about an amendment to the Constitution, not the Patriot Act - correct? I'm guessing, yes (fully knowing that I sound way younger than I am). Where did such amendment (the voting) restrict rights? It actually explained and expanded rights, no? And you are comparing that to the threat to the Second Amendment. So, basically, you are saying that "all men and all women can vote" is equal to saying "No one can own handguns" because they both would interpret the Constitution plus 10. Correct? And where do you put the putrid Patriot Act in all this?

TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 4:59:46 PM)
quote: CelticLord you must be kidding the right is not absolute and has already been infinged.The Brady law infringed it years ago.Beyond any and all scrutiny what bullshit.there are a hundred different regulations and laws that unfortunately while infringing ownership obviously don't go far enough They can't go very far (and be enforced) ... without starting a civil war, eh?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 5:06:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u CelticLord you must be kidding the right is not absolute and has already been infinged.The Brady law infringed it years ago.Beyond any and all scrutiny what bullshit.there are a hundred different regulations and laws that unfortunately while infringing ownership obviously don't go far enough Any law which restricts gun/weapon ownership is unconstitutional and should be repealed forthwith. Just because some jackanapes in Washington voted on a law does not make the law constitutional, just, or right.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125