Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 3:43:05 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 3/19/2008 3:46:35 PM >

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 181
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:00:44 PM   
TracyTaken


Posts: 615
Joined: 2/1/2008
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 182
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:07:54 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
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?





_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 183
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:17:08 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 184
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:20:49 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.
 

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 185
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:21:12 PM   
TracyTaken


Posts: 615
Joined: 2/1/2008
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 186
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:22:56 PM   
petdave


Posts: 2479
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 187
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:23:08 PM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
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!



(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 188
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:24:08 PM   
Aileen1968


Posts: 6062
Joined: 12/12/2007
From: I miss Shore, New Jersey
Status: offline 		*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. 

_____________________________



(in reply to TracyTaken)
Profile   Post #: 189
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:27:03 PM   
TracyTaken


Posts: 615
Joined: 2/1/2008
Status: offline
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. 

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 190
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:28:17 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________



(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 191
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:47:11 PM   
TracyTaken


Posts: 615
Joined: 2/1/2008
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 192
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:48:35 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
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.





_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 193
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:49:24 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________



(in reply to colouredin)
Profile   Post #: 194
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:49:54 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 195
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:55:27 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 196
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:56:51 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
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.




_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 197
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:58:22 PM   
TracyTaken


Posts: 615
Joined: 2/1/2008
Status: offline



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?

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 198
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:59:46 PM   
TracyTaken


Posts: 615
Joined: 2/1/2008
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 199
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 5:06:06 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________



(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 200
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078