RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership

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

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

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 10:42:25 PM)
Thanks for the help Kirata but i've been capable of explaining myself for a good long time.What i meant in my last post was that people claiming absolute rights,or denying that the Constitution has been changed,interpeted and reinterpeted are not likly to be swayed by any argument i could make .

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 10:49:52 PM)
One last thing though i certainly believe in people acting responsible I am also aware that some have a disturbing tendency not to act responsible.Hence laws are passed to protect the rest of us from our less responsible brethren..Some of those laws might tend to restrict on absolute freedoms claimed by others .But reasonable men can agree to this for the protection of society as a whole

Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 11:09:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u laws are passed to protect In my opinion, you are fooling yourself. Laws don't "protect" anyone. K.

petdave -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 11:11:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissSCD *I am saving myself a lot of grief by using a gun on someone in anger.* Ummm.... you might want to reconsider how you phrase that. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: MissSCD *Think about your children. Do you wish for them to pick up a gun and shoot someone with it?* Well, i'm child-free and fixed, so i can't really address this particular emotional appeal... got anything logical for me? Something that doesn't just go ahead and assume that someone i care about would go around killing people willy-nilly just because a firearm happened to be in the same house as them? [:-]

BitaTruble -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 11:22:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer However baring a repeal of the second ammendment the conflict of a simple "Act" of congress falls short of the force needed to outlaw gun ownership. When you get the 3/5 majority and subsequent ratification by the required state governments then I"ll make the choice to give up my guns, rebel against the government or leave the country. It's not 'just' Article II with which the states must contend to ratify a new amendment banning the right to keep and bear arms, but the combined power of the 9th and 14th as well and you can bet dollars to donuts that should anyone even 'try' to take guns, the lawyers will bring up those two amendments frequently in briefs and arguments. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" in conjunction with "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." These two are why I don't believe it's even possible to overturn Roe V Wade and why guns will not be banned in the US. Then there's this little tidbit - "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility," the bold pertaining directly to Heller, and the italics (with some smart mouthpiece) should get that whole man/woman marriage thing eventually thrown to the wolves in favor of a contract of marriage between legal consenting adults regardless of gender ... but, that's another thread. Celeste edited to change congress to the states

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 11:31:50 PM)
Apologies for the hijacking ,but what does it mean when your profile is viewed by a moderator

BitaTruble -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 11:33:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Apologies for the hijacking ,but what does it mean when your profile is viewed by a moderator That you should probably take care of what you say so you don't get yourself a gold bordered email. [;)] Celeste

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 11:39:24 PM)
RT, On the right to own and bear arms there is absolute certainty. The right to own and bear predates our constitution by nearly 1000 years to King alfred. Several societies were required to bear arms of the times to protect the kingdom and their homes and property etc. You cannot take the international positivist approach to a document written in the negative like gonzales did in his repeated attacks on the constitution and in the end come out with correct answers. If you take out some time and I do mean a lot of time to review history you will find the answers you need. I can save you the trouble by simply saying there are 2 reasons we have that right. self defense from other people and self defense from our government in the event we need to go to war against despotism. The declaration of independence makes that perfectly clear. As far as what was meant by arms, anything that the governments standing army would use against us we were to have more of so the people would win when its all over. Simple as that. Now; I doubt the government is going to nuke a million people marching on washington to overtake them since they would be nuking themselves. Just arguing about commas and definitions is rediculous in the case of the constitution as we have all the records and transcripts. VI. Conclusion English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers. These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says. If you got a 1/2 hour its a really good read and will answer much of what you are talking about. http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn7

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 11:41:27 PM)
Don't believe I am quilty of attacking anyone ,I have attacked some opinions but again I think I did that in a reasonable manner and without rancor,if I am mistaken I certainly would like to apologize to anyone i might have offended.

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 11:47:23 PM)
slave mike I suggest to get a better understanding of our position that you read that whole history of the 2nd in the link I put in my post above.

BitaTruble -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 11:55:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Don't believe I am quilty of attacking anyone ,I have attacked some opinions but again I think I did that in a reasonable manner and without rancor,if I am mistaken I certainly would like to apologize to anyone i might have offended. There are other things which can get you moderated beyond attacking or flaming such as thread highjacking. To that end, I'm done doing that very thing myself. [;)] btw: You know, a moderater might have viewed you just because they felt like it as well .. so, don't be overly concerned if you are within TOS guidelines and haven't received a gold-bordered email from one of the powers that be. It's my understanding that you'll receive a warning before a moderation unless, perhaps, you are egregious in action. Celeste

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 12:02:48 AM)
Thanks and goodnight

cloudboy -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 2:14:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u NRA handbook I think its more simple than that. Some Americans just love their guns. There's no getting around it. This love blinds them to the harm they cause. This love deludes them into thinking citizen ownership of weapons curbs Gov't tyranny. This love makes them utter ridiculous statements like, "laws don't protect anyone," or it makes them extend equal protection claims used for minorities (blacks, disabled, gays) to gun owners. When I see such blind and ignorant arguments like these, I realize how a "love of guns" trumps basic rationality. Its arguments like those listed above which also explain how gun proponents only read half the Second Amendment when they interpret gun rights as absolute. In debating the Second Amendment with gun lovers, I usually learn very little about public policy, public safety, criminology, or jurisprudence --- but what I do learn about is the nature of human psychology --- which can turn individual wants into "sacred rights." An ordinary thing, owning a weapon, becomes a religion of idealized freedom and personal safety. Maybe this comes from firing gun. Maybe this comes from the feeling of owning a gun. Maybe it comes from watching THE OUTLAW JOSEY WHALES. Clearly gun regulation has its pitfalls as a means to curbing violence and promoting public safety. But when the intent of simple gun regulations like THE BRADY BILL and the Assault Weapons Ban is equated with the beginning of an American Fascist state, that's when you know the slippery slope arguments are lined with the grease of irrationality.

farglebargle -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 5:08:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 FR there is no need to discuss what a militia is or who is in it. The congress defined it in the US code § 3 TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311. Militia: composition and classes How Current is This? (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. That's a Federal Code citation. It's subordinate to the Constitution, so for purposes of discussing the Constitution, it is irrelevant. There exists an Creator Given Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Federal Government "Shall Not Infringe" that Right.

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 5:28:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I think its more simple than that. Some Americans just love their guns. There's no getting around it. This love blinds them to the harm they cause. This love deludes them into thinking citizen ownership of weapons curbs Gov't tyranny. This love makes them utter ridiculous statements like, "laws don't protect anyone," or it makes them extend equal protection claims used for minorities (blacks, disabled, gays) to gun owners. I think you're exactly right; love, and force of habit. The mere thought of losing their guns has 90% of the posters on this thread drooling with anger - yet, the Supreme Court just went and reinforced their beloved right to own the fucking guns! People who share a point of view end up squabbling pettily over minute points of detail so blinded they are by the issue... It's ironic to me that in a young country such as America, so many people are choosing to live in this medieval state of fear and paranoia. To hold on to the guns and say "fuck you!" to the community at large... it makes sense, in the most invidualistic society in the world. I hear the argument that "it's my right!" on a loop; but it's also my right to not get shot by some gun toting cretin - as you know, guys and girls, not all gun lovers are kind hearted, responsible citizens... And some argue that if I owned a gun, I would be able to defend myself. But if I get shot in the back, it won't matter whether I had a gun or not anyway. Those that cling on to their guns for dear life... good for you. But don't get all rabid on those of us who argue that perhaps, doing away with firearms might lead, eventually, to a gentler, kinder society. We still have the right to free speech... until we get shot in the head.

caitlyn -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 6:00:20 AM)
I've always questioned the ability of people to understand the motivation of others ... and question even more when they choose to display this ability so openly. Don't judge someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes, I think the saying goes. I think perhaps cloudboy and kSol should pick up shop and move to rural South Texas ... and we will see how long they have their lofty opinions of gun regulation.

postulant -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 6:03:07 AM)
deep breath Geez, I'm almost afraid to ask this, but I'm too curious not to! Please know that it is not my intention to antagonize anybody and that I am truly wanting to learn and better understand the point-of-view of all sides of this issue. To those that are advocates of our right to bear arms, is it your belief that none should be denied that right? Or do you support restrictions? I'm referring to those with a criminal record, significant mental illness or deficiency, or whatever other caveats it is decided should be in place. p.

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 6:17:04 AM)
What I care about is that my son doesn't get shot. Makes sense?

petdave -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 6:31:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DiurnalVampire We cannot buy a car without a drivers license, certifying that we have learned to safely operate a car. I believe there should be something similiar for firearms. There should be a required certification course, and without a "gun license" you should not be alowed to purchase a firearm. Actually, that's untrue. You cannot operate a vehicle on public roads without a license. You generally cannot purchase a motor vehicle from a dealership without proof of insurance (they may check for a license before allowing you to drive it off the lot; i'm not certain). i've bought... geez, probably a dozen vehicles through private-party sales, and never once been asked for a license. However, as far as the law is concerned, you can buy as many cars as you like without a license. You may drive them on your own property, or any other private property that allows you to. If you are on a racetrack, your own farm, an off-road trail, you don't even need to be legal driving age- in fact, there are a number of racing divisions, particularly with off-road motorcycles, that cut off well before legal driving age. You don't need to register or insure off-road-only vehicles, either. So, the appropriate analog is not firearms ownership, but the carrying of a firearm in public places. And so, most states in the U.S. have specific requirements that a citizen must meet in order to receive a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public, including training classes. This is stepping outside the Constitutional arguments, though, since there is no explicit "right to drive"...

celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 6:50:37 AM)
quote: Those that cling on to their guns for dear life... good for you. But don't get all rabid on those of us who argue that perhaps, doing away with firearms might lead, eventually, to a gentler, kinder society. Kitten, I don't recall anyone getting "rabid" on you. They've just stated that you're wrong. Arguing against the individual right to arm himself if and how he chooses is wrong; that argument subordinates individual liberty to the power of some mythical "collective", and that is morally wrong. A just society begins and ends with the choice of the individual; respect for that choice cannot exist where the individual cannot arm himself as he chooses to defend his liberty as he chooses. A kinder gentler society will be achieved not by belittling individual liberties but by celebrating them. It will be achieved by seeking to end the quarrels between men, not by engaging in petty transference and facetiously blaming the instrument for the sins of the hand that wields it.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875