RE: The 2nd Amendment

RE: The 2nd Amendment (Full Version)

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

Message

TahoeSadist -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 7:18:07 AM)
But wait! There's more!! George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." Sir George Tucker: "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.) Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” To make the statements that the founders "couldn't have imagined the current situation with weapons" etc. requires one to ignore what the founders themselves wrote about on the subject, as well as either ignoring or never troubling to read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates. The biggest debate about the Bill of Rights was not whether these rights existed, but whether they even needed to be formally recognized because they were self evident, and the Federal government only had the specific powers spelled out in detail in the body of the Constitution, so it couldn't trample on the rights of the states and citizens. The much ignored Preamble to the Bill of Rights explains the Bill's purpose: THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution I also ask the people who hold the view that the founding fathers hadn't seen the modern weapons so it's perfectly ok to ban them, a rhetorical question: The founding fathers never saw the internet, so is it equally ok to ban any speech a person may find objectionable there? This is rhetorical because I know the answers I'd hear: from the nonsense "argument" of "the internet doesn't kill people" (nonsense because no weapon kills, the person using the weapon kills) to the dodge of the question with shrieks of "THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!" TS

Alumbrado -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 8:56:45 AM)
quote: (A) The Ohio organized militia consist of all citizens of the state who are not permanently handicapped, as handicapped is defined in section 4112.01 of the Revised Code, who are more than seventeen years, and not more than sixty-seven years, of age http://www.fortliberty.org/militia/law-ohio.shtml Ironic that a 'lawyer' in Ohio would try to pass off the claim that there is no militia 'underway' there.... So far there hasn't been anything factual or logical presented to support the argument that the 2nd amendment doesn't mean exactly what it says.

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 1:02:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado So far there hasn't been anything factual or logical presented to support the argument that the 2nd amendment doesn't mean exactly what it says. Perhaps because such supposed facts and/or logic simply do not Exist? I could waste my time reiterating what so many have so admirably already said, even within this thread. Instead I'm going to refrain, since I'm already firmly convinced that it would matter less than a hill of beans how often such was repeated in changing the stance of those who seek to curtain the rights this country was founded upon. I will say this, however, as a gun owner, frequent shooter in target practice, occassional hunter, concealed carry permit holder, NRA member, and stanch Constitutionalist : they'll take away my guns when they pry them out of my cold, dead fingers - and not one second before. As for "treason" (which I think I saw someone bring up earlier in the thread) - the founders of our country were themselves guilty of "treason" in that they rose up in rebellion against their Legal government, ie the King of Britain. What is considered "treasonous" is redefined by every generation, by those who hold power, in order to maintain that power - obviously Treason wasn't as much a concern to our forefathers as Tyranny was, since the 2nd Amendment was put into place specifically to Prevent Tyranny, not to prevent Treason. (For that matter, I consider it Treasonous of Politicians to even Suggest laws that are in direct contradiction to the Constitution - put them all in front of a firing squad!)

slvemike4u -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 4:05:47 PM)
Good evening all,I would like to start out by saying what follows is mere opinion on my part,nothing more nothing less.Last night I once again jumped into the cauldron that will typically greet anyone trying to dispute the unfettered right to arms granted in the 2nd amendment Usual suspects jumped all over me with the usual level of vitirol,those given to civil discourse kept it has one would expect civil,to the others I care not a whit.So this explanation is addressed to those that can receive it has intended ...my opinion of which I'm entitled ,no matter how grounded in emotion or flawed logic it might be....While it is true the Founders goal was an armed citizenry that would give any future despot or tyrant pause...I suggest that is just not applicable today...In today's modern world ,is a citizenry ,even one armed to the teeth with modern weapons enough to give a tyrant pause,did those armed citizens protect us from the Patriot Act a most odious piece of legislation .Some would say that it matters not the Founders could not have conceived of assualt rifles,fair enough....could the founders have conceived of Virginia Tech...there is a clause in the Constitution against interference with interstate commerce is there not...what if a biological weapon were released and the only choice of containment would be a closing of state borders...would voices cry out this is a violation of the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution...would You hold the Constitution to be a suicide pact...the document itself more sacred than the health of the Republic it represents...I am not advocating stripping the people of the "right to bear arms"...I am on the other hand suggesting logic and forbearance demands the right to fetter and legislate that right...I fear more a gun crazed populace than a well intentioned law...a better safeguard of our liberties would be an informed and voting electorate than all the well armed and well meaning citizens who decry any attempt at all to flow the stench of blood all these weapons invariably lead to...just my opinion one that the same Constitution I will be hit over the head with guarantees me the right to

slaveboyforyou -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 4:27:47 PM)
quote: Last night I once again jumped into the cauldron that will typically greet anyone trying to dispute the unfettered right to arms granted in the 2nd amendment Usual suspects jumped all over me with the usual level of vitirol Mike, no one jumped all over you. You made numerous arguments and many of us called you on those. I read all the posts, and everyone was very civil towards you and the other gun control proponents. quote: In today's modern world ,is a citizenry ,even one armed to the teeth with modern weapons enough to give a tyrant pause You're damn straight it's enough to give tyrants pause. I hear this argument all the time from people that we can't resist a modern military. But it's horse manure. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, they were absolutely ruthless. The Mujahadeen was not well armed when they invaded. If you've ever watched any of the footage from the late 70's and early 80's from Afghanistan, you'll see Afghans armed with flintlock muskets. They did what all partisan guerilla fighters do; they use inferior weapons to get better weapons. An armed citizenry absolutely creates problems for tyrants. quote: Some would say that it matters not the Founders could not have conceived of assualt rifles,fair enough....could the founders have conceived of Virginia Tech... I made the argument that the Founders could have and probably did conceive of modern firearms. Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc, etc, are nothing new. The United States has had numerous massacres in it's history. I can't conceive of a group of men walking into a village and murdering all the inhabitants now a days in America, but it happened often in the 18th and 19th Centuries to American Indians. quote: a better safeguard of our liberties would be an informed and voting electorate than all the well armed and well meaning citizens who decry any attempt at all to flow the stench of blood all these weapons invariably lead to You have no liberties if you don't have the means to protect them. Rights are an abstract notion that mean nothing without the ability to defend them. Your vote doesn't mean shit in a corrupt, tyrannical society.

DomAviator -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 4:34:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u could the founders have conceived of Virginia Tech... ... I am on the other hand suggesting logic and forbearance demands the right to fetter and legislate that right...I fear more a gun crazed populace than a well intentioned law... Laws are useful for toilet paper not for stopping violent criminals. By their very definition criminals do not obey the laws. In the case of Columbine, they violated numerous laws simply by having the weapons - yet it didnt stop them. That little mofo at Virginia Tech also violated laws merely by acquiring and posessing those weapons. He was a criminal before he fired the first shot. Did gun laws stop Virginia Tech? No. Let me tell ya about another school shooting in Missisipi that doesnt recieve as much press...Kid went on a shooting rampage. Shop teacher went out to his car, came back with his own gun, and put the little fucker down like a rabid dog. Virginia Tech would have ended a lot differently had numerous faculty members, or students over the age of 21 pulled their own licensed guns and dropped that boy before he got too far out of hand. Columbine, nothing would have helped except arming the teachers because those under 21 can not legally posess a pistol under federal law. (18 for a long gun) As I said, I own over 100 guns. INCLUDING assault rifles, and including LEGALLY OWNED "Class 3" firearms aka - "Machine Guns or Destructive Devices". Not one of which has been used in a crime. On fathers day, in Pasadena TX a katrina refugee decided to celebrate fathers day by killing both of his kids and setting their bodies on fire. He used a steak knife. Thus steak knives are more dangerous than my "arsenal" of assult weapons....

jlf1961 -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 4:44:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u While it is true the Founders goal was an armed citizenry that would give any future despot or tyrant pause...I suggest that is just not applicable today...In today's modern world ,is a citizenry ,even one armed to the teeth with modern weapons enough to give a tyrant pause,did those armed citizens protect us from the Patriot Act a most odious piece of legislation . No, the armed citizens did not stop such legislation, in fact, most of the details of those bills were unknown to the public until after it had been pushed through congress at a pace that has only been seen once before, the declaration of war on Japan. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Some would say that it matters not the Founders could not have conceived of assualt rifles,fair enough....could the founders have conceived of Virginia Tech.. Not the best example to use, considering the number of massacres of unarmed people conducted by members of the colonial militia during the French and Indian wars. But, if you wish to follow that logic, then I would propose to ban knives, since what Jack the Ripper did with one is well known. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u there is a clause in the Constitution against interference with interstate commerce is there not...what if a biological weapon were released and the only choice of containment would be a closing of state borders...would voices cry out this is a violation of the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution...would You hold the Constitution to be a suicide pact...the document itself more sacred than the health of the Republic it represents...I am not advocating stripping the people of the "right to bear arms"...I am on the other hand suggesting logic and forbearance demands the right to fetter and legislate that right...I fear more a gun crazed populace than a well intentioned law... The only problem with 'well intentioned' laws to control such ownership has in the past proven to be the path used by many to remove firearms from the people, lest you forgot Hitler and Stalin? quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u a better safeguard of our liberties would be an informed and voting electorate than all the well armed and well meaning citizens who decry any attempt at all to flow the stench of blood all these weapons invariably lead to...just my opinion one that the same Constitution I will be hit over the head with guarantees me the right to An informed and voting electorate? Where would you find such? First, the government puts its own spin on its actions, thus, many of the facts are not truly released, leaving the electorate completely in the dark. Second, as soon as a person is elected to office, lobbyist and other political action groups start lining their pockets in an effort to gain support, thus the government of the people, for the people, by the people ceases to exist. Third, the well informed and voting public do not actually have a say in what goes on in our government, please read the difinition of republic.

Irishknight -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 5:00:33 PM)
I find it amazing that the fault stated for the school massacres was the 2nd amendment to some, not the lunatic pulling the trigger. Had there been access at Viginia Tech to weapons by the other students, that Psycho might have been dropped in a speedy manner. Columbine was committed by 2 wackos who had illegal weapons. Those kids were not even old enough to legally own the guns they used. Not the fault of the 2nd Amendment but of the parents. The Jonesboro school shooting gets brought up often by those supporting gun control. The little dirtball stole the guns by breaking and entering. Then he committed a sniper style attack on unarmed teachers and kids. Had the people under fire at any of these three events been able to return fire, things would most likely have been different. It would be like trying to rob a donut shop full of cops. BAD idea (but it was hilarious when done in the movies).

DomAviator -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 5:18:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight Columbine was committed by 2 wackos who had illegal weapons. Those kids were not even old enough to legally own the guns they used. Not the fault of the 2nd Amendment but of the parents. Not to mention that they also made, MADE not purchased or stole, explosives for use in pipe bombs - so tack on multiple unlawful posession of explosives, and manufacture of an explosive device charges, and the planning that went into the attack was a conspiracy to commit murder rap, conspiracy to commit arson rap, conspiracy to commit kidnapping rap etc... and they committed mail fraud in the ordering of numerous things etc... Hence the columbine kids were multiple third strike felons, before they ever put on their trench coats and walked into the school.... But yep - despite the dozens of felonies they comitted before the first shot was fired - teh liberals think just one more gun law would have stopped them LOL OH NO!!!! WE CANT FACE A GUN VIOLATION! I mean multiple counts of murder, arson by explosives, conspiracy, manufacture of explosives, kidnapping, menacing, assault, assault with a deadly weapon, etc that didnt scare them but ooooooh a gun charge would have stopped them cold LMFAO.

Alumbrado -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 5:27:09 PM)
Sooooo.... back to the point that the 2nd amendment means exactly what it says, and not what some people wish it said. 'Well regulated' means able to function efficiently, not 'owned by a government agency'.... The two phrases constitute an ablative absolute, making them independent of each other... 'Arms' means arms, not just museum pieces, 'militia' means the bulk of the able populace, not the NG, 'shall not' means shall not, and most importantly, 'infringed' means infringed.... (The sense of 'encroachment' being current at the time the Framers were making their deliberations.) There is still the issue of interpretation as to how these words can be Constitutionally applied in real life...as shown by the case now pending in the USSC. Up to this point, the courts have applied the typical test of reasonableness to the absolutist's extreme views. Can 'the people' locked up in prison demand their 2nd amendment rights to bear arms? Not according to the courts. Can someone ajudicated a danger to themselves or others exercise the same right? Not according to the courts. Does requiring FFL registration of automatic weapons, rise to the level of infringement? Not so far. Does the requirement of concealed carry licensure violate the right to 'bear'? Many courts have said it does not. What about the time honored practice of witholding such licenses on the basis of arbitrary standards, such as race, patronage, or income? That practice is increasingly being struck down. Now some not so clear areas. Can a person living in government housing be deprived of ownership of weapons, even though they have committed no crimes? Can people living in a government reservation or district be so deprived? Can people living in a municipality be exempted from the 2nd or other amendments by city ordinance? Can the fear of potential media hyped events be a valid legal justification for suspending the Constitution in part or in whole?

slvemike4u -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 5:34:23 PM)
Okay in inverse order,IK suggests my inclusion of certain school shootings miss the mark somehow,well let me expand on my thought.Virginia Tech he says shouldn't be used to attack the amendment ,rather attack the lunatic ,all well and good but the lunatic was pulling a legal trigger was he not.Now suggest that more stringent restrictions be put in place and we run into that same amendment do we not.Than he discounts Columbine using the logic that those kids weren't old enough to legally possess such weapons(conceding somewhat the local government's right to restrict such ownership)their parents were legal weren't they,if I am mistaken I apologise but weren't those guns legally owned by the negligent parents...Again legal guns used for nefarious purposes.Than we have his example of Jonesboro and again he goes to great length to point out this dimwit was not the legal owner of these weapons,granted but apparently they were readily available to this rocket scientist were they not...Should not legal owners of firearms be responsible for their safe storage...Than comes my favorite argument the one where more guns not less would add to the public safety...pray tell how that logic works...I come from New York City where apparently The Police Department hailed by that City has New York's Finest can not be counted on once the firing starts to show any restraint...how many of You would really like to be present when a bunch of sport shooters in full panic start defending themselves...for myself I would rather skip the shooting gallery...so to sum up IK's post he admits to a municipalities right to fetter gun ownership but seems to think so far these attempts have been a failure,than goes on to propose more guns to be the answer...sorry can't wrap my min around that..JLF1961 actually linked knives since jack the ripper had such success using that particular weapon...I will not give this too much time has Jack's body count was more attributable to either inefficiency on the part of Scotland Yard or the exerting of undue influence from on high...Either way Jack's victims fell one at a time and society had a chance to respond that they didn't is not because knives were available...the example that the founding fathers could have predicted mass murder on the scale we see today because they were involved in what on its face was an act of genocide towards the original inhabitant's of the continent is disingenuous on it's face and not worthy of a response..than finally their is the standby argument that are liberties depend on an armed populace...Afghanistan is trotted out an example of one people repulsing an invader...is this poster suggesting a link between the Red Army and it's conscript ill-supplied unmotivated forces and the U.S. Army ,Air Force et al...again not worth of response...Gentleman these are my opinions and You have posted Yours...You believe me wrong I believe You wrong ...it's a great Country isn't it

jlf1961 -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 5:43:38 PM)
Alumbrado, I agree with your statements, but you forgot a couple that you may wish to add. Though many states west of the Mississippi have open carry laws for firearms, (meaning that one can carry a pistol in open display) there is the fact that the local authorities have the right to act in accordence to the public good, meaning: 1. The display of said firearm is cause for alarm by some members of any establishment the person may enter. 2. There is no reasonable circumstance that would require an individual to carry a weapon openly. Therefore the law enforcement agencies can either arrest or have the individual lock the weapon in his vehicle. The supreme court has declared that this does not infringe on the 2nd amendment. Most western states have 'travel' laws which mean that one can openly carry a loaded weapon when travelling more than a days distance from one's home. In fact, there are some states that even require this to be done, however, those laws do not apply to someone travelling by public transportation, or car. It only applies to someone who is travelling by horseback.

DomAviator -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 6:19:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Alumbrado, I agree with your statements, but you forgot a couple that you may wish to add. Though many states west of the Mississippi have open carry laws for firearms, (meaning that one can carry a pistol in open display) there is the fact that the local authorities have the right to act in accordence to the public good, meaning: 1. The display of said firearm is cause for alarm by some members of any establishment the person may enter. 2. There is no reasonable circumstance that would require an individual to carry a weapon openly. Therefore the law enforcement agencies can either arrest or have the individual lock the weapon in his vehicle. The supreme court has declared that this does not infringe on the 2nd amendment. Most western states have 'travel' laws which mean that one can openly carry a loaded weapon when travelling more than a days distance from one's home. In fact, there are some states that even require this to be done, however, those laws do not apply to someone travelling by public transportation, or car. It only applies to someone who is travelling by horseback. Do you just make up this shit as you go along - or do you actually believe it? I would REALLY like to see a statute citation on this crap. I know of NO state east or west of the missisipi, OR ALASKA for that matter that has a "shall carry if riding a horse" statute. I live in Texas and open carry is expressly prohibited, unless you are hunting and the carrying a weapon in your car, under the travel exemption to the CCW rule, must be CONCEALED not open. (Once upon a time the journey had to be 35 miles, not "days on horseback"... However, perry has issued a proclamation declaring you car to be an extension of your home...) Colorado, where I went to college, lived, and currently own property permits "open carry where not prohibited" which essentially means when afield hunting, at a range, or on your own property. The list of where open carry is prohibited is "just about everywhere" - in sight of schools, colleges, universities, houses of worship, places that serve alcohol, govt building, banks, public transit routes etc.... In Colorado it is "Disorderly Conduct" to "Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place" Unless you have a CCW you can not carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle in Colorado. Nevada you can open carry, including in a vehicle. Utah you need a license. Wyoming and NM you can but in a vehicle it must be plainly visible.Alaska you can, but you have to inform the cops in a traffic stop and there is a lengthly list of places you cant. I can go on and one covering every state west of the missisipi and know of not one that has a "shall carry" law, much less one prohibiting cars but requiring for horseback or "journeys of several days".... We have enough problems with the anti-gun crowd, spewing made up bullshit doesnt help....

Irishknight -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 6:22:03 PM)
First, the lunatic at Virginia tech would have probably used an axe or something else if he didn't have a gun. Blaming the guns is like blaming the hammer that smashes your finger. And since the Columbine kids were under age, the guns were in their possession illegaly. Not a case of legally obtained guns causing mayhem. As for your easy access comment about Jonesboro, the kid broke into his grandfather's house, broke into a locked cabinet using a crowbar, broke into a locked ammo drawer and then he stole the guns. It wasn't just a walk in and take them. It was breaking and entering. Again, if we look at the trouble this kid went to getting guns to kill people, he would have done it anyway with some other method. Take away the guns, and these four psychos would still have committed murders. I'm not sure how you inferred that he had easy access. I guess if we go by that notion, anyone who has the windows smashed out of their car provided easy access to the car thief. Blame the hand swinging the hammer that smashed your thumb, not the hammer. I will grant that there are good reasons for denying some people the right to own firearms. Dangerous felons, children, people with known mental disorders that can be considered dangerous should be barred from owning firearms. I can agree with some amount of control but not getting rid of them.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 6:22:12 PM)
quote: Okay in inverse order,IK suggests my inclusion of certain school shootings miss the mark somehow,well let me expand on my thought.Virginia Tech he says shouldn't be used to attack the amendment ,rather attack the lunatic ,all well and good but the lunatic was pulling a legal trigger was he not.Now suggest that more stringent restrictions be put in place and we run into that same amendment do we not.Than he discounts Columbine using the logic that those kids weren't old enough to legally possess such weapons(conceding somewhat the local government's right to restrict such ownership)their parents were legal weren't they,if I am mistaken I apologise but weren't those guns legally owned by the negligent parents...Again legal guns used for nefarious purposes.Than we have his example of Jonesboro and again he goes to great length to point out this dimwit was not the legal owner of these weapons,granted but apparently they were readily available to this rocket scientist were they not...Should not legal owners of firearms be responsible for their safe storage...Than comes my favorite argument the one where more guns not less would add to the public safety...pray tell how that logic works...I come from New York City where apparently The Police Department hailed by that City has New York's Finest can not be counted on once the firing starts to show any restraint...how many of You would really like to be present when a bunch of sport shooters in full panic start defending themselves...for myself I would rather skip the shooting gallery...so to sum up IK's post he admits to a municipalities right to fetter gun ownership but seems to think so far these attempts have been a failure,than goes on to propose more guns to be the answer...sorry can't wrap my min around that..JLF1961 actually linked knives since jack the ripper had such success using that particular weapon...I will not give this too much time has Jack's body count was more attributable to either inefficiency on the part of Scotland Yard or the exerting of undue influence from on high...Either way Jack's victims fell one at a time and society had a chance to respond that they didn't is not because knives were available...Okay in inverse order,IK suggests my inclusion of certain school shootings miss the mark somehow,well let me expand on my thought.Virginia Tech he says shouldn't be used to attack the amendment ,rather attack the lunatic ,all well and good but the lunatic was pulling a legal trigger was he not.Now suggest that more stringent restrictions be put in place and we run into that same amendment do we not.Than he discounts Columbine using the logic that those kids weren't old enough to legally possess such weapons(conceding somewhat the local government's right to restrict such ownership)their parents were legal weren't they,if I am mistaken I apologise but weren't those guns legally owned by the negligent parents...Again legal guns used for nefarious purposes.Than we have his example of Jonesboro and again he goes to great length to point out this dimwit was not the legal owner of these weapons,granted but apparently they were readily available to this rocket scientist were they not...Should not legal owners of firearms be responsible for their safe storage...Than comes my favorite argument the one where more guns not less would add to the public safety...pray tell how that logic works...I come from New York City where apparently The Police Department hailed by that City has New York's Finest can not be counted on once the firing starts to show any restraint...how many of You would really like to be present when a bunch of sport shooters in full panic start defending themselves...for myself I would rather skip the shooting gallery...so to sum up IK's post he admits to a municipalities right to fetter gun ownership but seems to think so far these attempts have been a failure,than goes on to propose more guns to be the answer...sorry can't wrap my min around that..JLF1961 actually linked knives since jack the ripper had such success using that particular weapon...I will not give this too much time has Jack's body count was more attributable to either inefficiency on the part of Scotland Yard or the exerting of undue influence from on high...Either way Jack's victims fell one at a time and society had a chance to respond that they didn't is not because knives were available...the example that the founding fathers could have predicted mass murder on the scale we see today because they were involved in what on its face was an act of genocide towards the original inhabitant's of the continent is disingenuous on it's face and not worthy of a response..than finally their is the standby argument that are liberties depend on an armed populace...Afghanistan is trotted out an example of one people repulsing an invader...is this poster suggesting a link between the Red Army and it's conscript ill-supplied unmotivated forces and the U.S. Army ,Air Force et al...again not worth of response...Gentleman these are my opinions and You have posted Yours...You believe me wrong I believe You wrong ...it's a great Country isn't it .than finally their is the standby argument that are liberties depend on an armed populace...Afghanistan is trotted out an example of one people repulsing an invader...is this poster suggesting a link between the Red Army and it's conscript ill-supplied unmotivated forces and the U.S. Army ,Air Force et al...again not worth of response...Gentleman these are my opinions and You have posted Yours...You believe me wrong I believe You wrong ...it's a great Country isn't it Mike, I am not trying to be a prick here but....work on your writing skills. You don't use paragraphs, and it's hard as hell to make any sense out of your writing. You just cram all of your ideas into one rambling collection of words. I am not trying to give you a grammar lesson. Lord knows I am not perfect when it comes to writing. I am a horrible typist. But, slow down and give your responses some thought. Now I am going to try and address what I assume where your responses to me: quote: the example that the founding fathers could have predicted mass murder on the scale we see today because they were involved in what on its face was an act of genocide towards the original inhabitant's of the continent is disingenuous on it's face and not worthy of a response.. Why are these examples disingenous? Mass murder is mass murder. The "scale we see today" is small in comparison to some acts that occurred in our history. quote: Afghanistan is trotted out an example of one people repulsing an invader...is this poster suggesting a link between the Red Army and it's conscript ill-supplied unmotivated forces and the U.S. Army ,Air Force et al...again not worth of response I am not making a comparison between the Soviets and the U.S. military. We actually care if we kill civilians. The Soviets didn't care. The point I was making is that armed civilians can resist modern militaries that use ruthless tactics. Technology is great and it gives you an edge over those that have less. But, technology does not give us omnipotent power over people. Out matched people have prevailed throughout history, and it's the fool that presumes technology will make him all powerful.

slvemike4u -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 6:43:17 PM)
My apologies about the paragraphs .Having just come to accept that these Computer thingamajigs might not be tools of the devil my skill are not what they should be nor what they will eventually become

slvemike4u -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 6:59:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight First, the lunatic at Virginia tech would have probably used an axe or something else if he didn't have a gun. Blaming the guns is like blaming the hammer that smashes your finger. And since the Columbine kids were under age, the guns were in their possession illegaly. Not a case of legally obtained guns causing mayhem. As for your easy access comment about Jonesboro, the kid broke into his grandfather's house, broke into a locked cabinet using a crowbar, broke into a locked ammo drawer and then he stole the guns. It wasn't just a walk in and take them. It was breaking and entering. Again, if we look at the trouble this kid went to getting guns to kill people, he would have done it anyway with some other method. Take away the guns, and these four psychos would still have committed murders. I'm not sure how you inferred that he had easy access. I guess if we go by that notion, anyone who has the windows smashed out of their car provided easy access to the car thief. Blame the hand swinging the hammer that smashed your thumb, not the hammer. I will grant that there are good reasons for denying some people the right to own firearms. Dangerous felons, children, people with known mental disorders that can be considered dangerous should be barred from owning firearms. I can agree with some amount of control but not getting rid of them. When the hammer smashes my finger I will simply put ice on it,and all will be well.IMO if one trumpets his right to own Guns ,why can I not assert my right to be safe from those guns.Whether they are easy or difficult to steal will not comfort the greiving family of a victim.Now yesterday I was told the technology for smart guns is not quite there yet,who is responsible for that failure if not the industry and the NRA which has stood in the way of any legislation demanding this... Gun ownership is a right , an inalienable right, has enumerated in the Constitution,is it too much to ask that the right is attended with responsibility and jealous protection of others right to life.Would the technology be available now if it wern't for the opposition of the gun lobby in the first place.Surely there is a middle ground where Your rights to ownership remain and the rest of society is made a little safer(anyone else notice I made a paragraph)

CraZYWiLLiE -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 7:04:17 PM)
One of my favorites...without the 2nd all the others are just writing on parchment..

slvemike4u -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 7:07:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CraZYWiLLiE One of my favorites...without the 2nd all the others are just writing on parchment.. So it is Your belief that without Your personal armory(how large how small is irrelevant)all the other rights enumerated in the Document would be worthless...interesting to say the least

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 7:13:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou I am not making a comparison between the Soviets and the U.S. military. We actually care if we kill civilians. The Soviets didn't care. The point I was making is that armed civilians can resist modern militaries that use ruthless tactics. Technology is great and it gives you an edge over those that have less. But, technology does not give us omnipotent power over people. Out matched people have prevailed throughout history, and it's the fool that presumes technology will make him all powerful. Mike, since you seem to find the 70s/80s Soviet-Afgan conflict to be an ill conceived example, how about we use one from Our Own History - say.. oh... Viet Nam? In case you hadn't noticed, we LOST. We were better equipped, better trained, Thought (albeit mistakenly) we had a moral high ground - and yet, in the end, we got our asses kicked by a supposedly inferior force without much centralized leadership, and lacking any sort of significant technological advantage. As for your assertion that an "informed electorate" is a better choice than an armed citizenry - we've Had that. It obviously hasn't stopped the governmental excesses so far. I see no reason to believe (or even assume) that such is going to change. Just as an FYI - as far as I'm concerned, Gun Control is a 5 inch group at 500 yards using a rifle with a good scope - or a .5 inch group at 50 yards - either one takes some Serious Control. Yes I'm a gun owner. Yes, I have a concealed carry permit (which no doubt seriously scares the hell out of a few people!) - though if you were ever to meet me, you'd never know whether I was armed or not. The whole point in Concealed carry is just that - it's concealed, hidden - the only one who knows for certain it's there is ME unless something arrises that I have no other choice but to use it. Thing is - since I've had that concealed carry permit, the people who know me that gave me grief in the past have Stopped doing so, simply because they Aren't sure whether I'm packin or not! It may sound Cliched, but it's also true - an Armed society is a Polite society.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875