RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban

RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (Full Version)

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

Message

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 4:35:03 PM)
What? For two and half grand it doesn't even work? What a con!

jlf1961 -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 4:38:13 PM)
quote: The bolded statement above is inaccurate. I am no fan of Clinton by any means, but Special Forces Operational Detatchment Delta is NOT covered by the Posse Comitatus act. Delta, along with the US Navy Seals DEVGRU unit are "anti-terrorist" units. It could be very easily argued that an armed seige by an organized group resisting Federal Authority are involved in an insurrection or terrorist activities against the lawful govt. DomAviator is correct in this. Under the constitution, the President has full authority to use any and all means necessary to put down an armed revolt against the legitimate government. That is a purely executive power, and congress cant do squat about it. The key word is Armed in this section. What many fail to realize is that since the United States is a Federated Republic, any STATE can lawfully declare their secession from the U.S. However, if that act is accompanied by a taking up of arms against the remaining states, that act becomes an act of sedition, and comes under the authority of the President to deal with in any fashion he sees fit. In other words, the big goof the south made was to leave the union and then turn around and fire on fort Sumpter. There is nothing in the constitution to prevent secession. However, there are many parts of the constitution that deal with sedition and treason. Treason is the criminal act of a person either in the employ of the government or in government service. Sedition is the act of raising an armed force against the duly elected government and its representitives. Here is a current list of groups under the Justice Department watch list: http://www.angelfire.com/nv/micronations/usa.html

Thadius -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 4:40:40 PM)
Ah, I was a bit unclear in my last post... I meant that the really cool stuff costs a bit more, especially in the world of replicas.

MmeGigs -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 4:44:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HandSolo There are something like 700 accidental handgun deaths in the US (population 300 million) in a typical year. The statistics do not specify whether the guns are legally owned or not. The interviewee was either ignorant, lying, or using an unusual definition of "often." The interviewee was a law enforcement officer with many years of experience. I don't think that he was ignorant or lying or using an unusual definition of "often". I was sloppy in my use of "often" in the bit you quoted. He said that in his experience, loaded and unsecured weapons (he said nothing about illegally owned, nor did I in my post) hurt or kill people in the home much more often than they hurt or kill an intruder in defense of the home. He didn't say that there was a high likelihood that someone in these homes would be injured. The wording I used implied that in the bit you quoted but I think I said pretty much the opposite in an earlier post - that most folks would never experience a gun accident and many will feel safer for having a loaded gun in their home. What I relayed wasn't a statistic, it was annecdotal evidence based on his experience. I mentioned it in response to someone who voiced a similar concern. It's a fact that law enforcement is concerned about this ruling and what it's going to mean to them on the ground. It's their job to be concerned about this, and they'd be derelict in theri duty if they weren't. There are no statistics that I could find that confirm or invalidate his experience, but it does seem logical to assume that more loaded and unsecured guns would mean more accidental shootings. I don't know that a change in the law will mean that there will be more loaded and unsecured guns laying around. I don't assume that everyone who is (was) legally required to use security measures did so. I don't know that I agree with gun security laws. If I lived in a high-crime neighborhood and felt I needed to have a gun to protect myself, you're damned skippy I'd want to have the thing ready to go when I'm home, but I'd want it disabled and locked up when I'm not lest it fall into the wrong hands, and would hope my neighbors and the people my grandkids visit feel the same. I don't have a problem with shooting intruders and I'm all for prosecuting those whose loaded and unsecured guns result accidental death or injury to non-intruders. I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that the reversal of trigger-lock or other security related laws will result in more unsecured weapons. I know that there are plenty of stupid people out there who actually have to be told things as fundamental as don't try to suspend your submissive from the sprinkler system in your hotel room, don't stick things up your ass unless you've got a way to get them back out, make sure you know where the keys are before you snap on the padlock. You know it, too. And you know as well as I do that there are people out there buying guns who actually need to be told that these are dangerous items that need to be treated with respect for their potential to do harm. As I said, I'm not real big on trying to legislate away stupidity. I'd be happy to address this with safety classes and public service announcements rather than with legislation. But we do need to address it. If you think that we can just take it for granted that people will behave responsibly, you've got a lot more faith in people than I do.

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 4:44:54 PM)
How can replicas be cool [X(]? Okay, time for a new thread on the morals of aesthetics [:D] .

Thadius -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 4:48:27 PM)
Did you read the link I posted? (Historically Accurate Live Fireing Reproduction Gatling (Battery) Gun in 50 Caliber ($6,000) and 58 Caliber ($7,000) ) Anyways, I would be glad to hop over into a new topic... instead of hijacking this one.

DomAviator -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 5:10:04 PM)
In the United States lightning kills an average of 100 people a year. Worldwide 24,000 people a year die from lightning and 200,000+ are seriously injured. According to the Texas DPS web site approx 3500 people per year die in traffic accidents in Texas each year, with almost 42,000 nationwide. SOOOOOO, I say we ban cars and lightning and we leave the guns alone. A trigger lock on a defense weapon is the most moronic idea the liberals have yet proposed. "EXCUSE ME MISTER HOME INVADER, I hate to be a bad host so could you keep yourself busy kicking my wife, raping my dog, and stealing my shit while I run down to the gun safe to get the ammo and find the keys to my trigger lock?" Just because a person is a "law enforcement officer with many years of experience" doesnt mean he isnt an idiot. I will unload and put a trigger lock on my defense weapom when the fucking cops start carrying their guns that way! Now that Im divorced I dont have any kids in the house, but when I did they knew if you touch daddys gun you better shoot yourself in the head with it because if he finds out that you did, and you are still alive, you will wish you werent. I am sure I will get shit about this - but when I found out that my stepson violated the "do not touch a gun unless I am present" rule - I made him pick out his five favorite toys and then I blew them away. That was a powerful lesson. Incidentally, the gun he touched was NOT one of mine - it was at his little friends house and it was LMFAO a police officer's weapon which laid on the kitchen table while the nice officer slept and the kids played barely supervised by the school teacher mother! (Physician Heal Thyself!) Gun safety should be taught in the schools, and if they want to outlaw something it should be TOY GUNS. There were, and will be, ABSOLUTELY NO toy guns in my house. Guns are tools used to kill something or someone. They are not a prop in "cowboys and indians" , "cops and robbers" or "Army men". All toy guns do it teach kids to point guns at each other, they are contrary to good weapons discipline and handling practices. Same with this paint ball shit. My stepson wanted to play that... He was told that when he turns 18 he can join the Navy, become a SEAL, and engage in all the combat he wants but until then absolutely not because war is not a game it is a deadly art.... We dont need gun laws, we need responsible parents.

mistoferin -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 5:16:21 PM)
[sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif] DomAviator, Get shit about it? Well, not from me. Please go back and read my posts #173 and #197.

Alumbrado -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 5:33:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: The bolded statement above is inaccurate. I am no fan of Clinton by any means, but Special Forces Operational Detatchment Delta is NOT covered by the Posse Comitatus act. Delta, along with the US Navy Seals DEVGRU unit are "anti-terrorist" units. It could be very easily argued that an armed seige by an organized group resisting Federal Authority are involved in an insurrection or terrorist activities against the lawful govt. DomAviator is correct in this. Not really... all members of the military are covered by posse comitatus and other regulations, even the sooper seekrit members (unless that has been rewritten in some manner I'm not aware of, say by some clause in the Patriot Act). 10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law. The 'I'm too secret for the rules' stuff is one of the dead giveaways to a HSLD poser. The Wall of Shame used to have a great listing of how to spot them. So, the Waco question becomes, were they performing law enforcement functions as expressly prohibited, or were they simply there in an 'advisory' role? And calling it 'anti-terrorist' or a 'training exercise' needs to be backed up....how many of the Branch Davidians had outstanding warrants for terrorism before this raid? And how many convictions after? And the Insurrection Act is even flimsier... how many nuclear weapons were found at Waco? What percentage of the state of Texas was rendered unable to function by Koresh? Did domestic violence occurr 'to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession were incapable of maintaining public order'? If not....then not.

Alumbrado -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 6:08:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Just at the parts that were untrue. Like the Kellerman hoax, and your earlier claim that 'the people' in the 2nd amendment only means the government of the states, not individuals. I have no idea what the Kellerman hoax is, and googling it only turned up references to works of fiction. When I made the claim about "the people", I was right. That was the law of the land at the time that I posted, and had been for many years. It just changed yesterday. If you actually read what I posted, you would have seen that I didn't come down against the decision. I'm not sure how I feel about it yet - I see some good things and some bad things about it. I understood the DC ban but I didn't agree with it. I'm all for strict standards where they make sense, but I'm fundamentally opposed to outright bans on stuff that's legal in another context. I was neither surprised nor dismayed that it was overturned. I was pleased that they made clear that there will still be legal restrictions on gun ownership. That should go without saying - all of our rights are subject to restrictions - but considering the adamant stand of some pro-gun folks it is good that they were explicit about this. Which restrictions will stand and which will fall will be duked out in the courts. I was rather dismayed that the majority decision reached into issues not raised by the case before them, but not terribly surprised considering that it came from Scalia - I think he's an angry and cynical man. This could have been an unequivocal decision with a clear majority, it could have provided some guidance to lower courts in future decision making, but instead it has really just muddied things up and pretty much begs for all kinds of challenges. As I said, it's going to be a great time to be a lawyer with 2nd Amendment cred. The pro-gun and anti-gun folks are going to be rabidly searching for test cases and our appellate courts are going to be jammed at a time when they're seeing their resources diminish. It may ultimately be a good thing for the courts, budget-wise. They'll have an easier time making the case that they need more money when elected officials are getting loads of complaints about unseemly delays in getting cases heard. I'm willing to wait and see how it all shakes out before forming a final opinion about this decision. I'm really pretty bemused by the pro-gun folks who think that this is the final word on the subject and don't realize what a limited and fragile victory this is. They should talk to NARAL. This isn't about being pro-gun or anti-gun, it is about being pro-individual rights...if it were the 'law of the land', that whenever the Constitution guarantees a freedom to 'the people', it really means 'only to the government of each state', then we would be in deep kimchi. But there was no such law of the land, yesterday or the day before...as the majority of the Court recognized, 'the people' has long been understood to refer to individuals, and arguments to the contrary were simply specious. The minority of the Court seemed to recognize it as well, claiming that it should be subrogated by the 'greater good' of stopping gun crime... if it didn't exist, there would be no need to replace it. quote: The interviewee was a law enforcement officer with many years of experience. I don't think that he was ignorant or lying or using an unusual definition of "often". I was sloppy in my use of "often" in the bit you quoted. He said that in his experience, loaded and unsecured weapons (he said nothing about illegally owned, nor did I in my post) hurt or kill people in the home much more often than they hurt or kill an intruder in defense of the home. Again, that sounds like Kellerman's bogus work... turns out he was so wild with his definitions that 'in the home' meant one drug dealer shooting another drug dealer, and IIRC, police shooting anyone with an arrest record counted as shooting an 'acquaintance'... Are you sure that this LEO wasn't a law enforcement executive, i.e. a politician running for office as Chief or Sheriff? The policy positions of the IACP are about as opposite those of the rank and file police, as would be the board of directors of any corporation from the floor level union members.... In the case of private ownership of guns, the politicians that run law enforcement agencys frequently spout biased agit-prop like Kellerman's 'guns likely to be used against family'... And that is the point I'm making.. at the end of the day, pro-gun and anti-gun, right-wing or left-wing, are just distractions from the politician's game of trying to screw all but the elite out of any semblance of rights and power...and the mechanisms are ignorance, New Speak, agit prop, and the Big Lie. Well worth speaking out against no matter how one personally feels about guns.

DomAviator -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 6:11:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Not really... all members of the military are covered by posse comitatus and other regulations, even the sooper seekrit members (unless that has been rewritten in some manner I'm not aware of, say by some clause in the Patriot Act). 10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law. The 'I'm too secret for the rules' stuff is one of the dead giveaways to a HSLD poser. The Wall of Shame used to have a great listing of how to spot them. So, the Waco question becomes, were they performing law enforcement functions as expressly prohibited, or were they simply there in an 'advisory' role? And calling it 'anti-terrorist' or a 'training exercise' needs to be backed up....how many of the Branch Davidians had outstanding warrants for terrorsim before this raid? And how many convictions after? And the Insurrection Act is even flimsier... how many nuclear weapons were found at Waco? What percentage of the state of Texas was rendered unable to function by Koresh? Did domestic violence occurr 'to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession were incapable of maintaining public order'? If not....then not. Alumbrado, As usual "law and reality" are two very different things. I have never met a Delta operator, but have every reason to believe that they are governed by rules you and I do not know about simply by the nature of their mission. I have personally seen DEVGRU SEALs who were so far out of compliance with United States Navy grooming and uniform regulations that it wasnt even funny. I KNOW these men were not "posers" or playing the "super secret soldier bar room game" because they were ON A NAVAL AIR STATION, ATTENDING A BRIEFING as part of a weapons test program. So, while nobody is "above the law" some operate under a different set of laws. Rest assured, the Navy generally frowns on Ozzy Osbourne like hairstyles, yet some of these guys looked more like Jesus than Navy SEALs. Obviously, they maintined their poor grooming standards via a regulation exemption or some 0-1 would have marched their asses to the barber pronto. With that said - "unless otherwise authorized by law" would certainly be met by a presidential proclamation! If Waco were in any way illegal, rest assured Clinton would have been impeached for more than a blowjob! The man, deservedly so, had a special prosecutor giving him an anal probe for most of his presidency yet he got a pass on Waco because - the use of Delta was both lawful and appropriate. If it were not the wolves would have had him. Your logic on "outstanding warrants prior to the raid" is flawed. How many of the 9-11 hijackers had prior terrorism warrants? Does taht make them not terrorists? Liekwise you do not need nuclear weapons for insurrection. The Branch Davidians took up arms against the United States Govt. They fired on federal agents serving a warrant lawfully issued by a court. They then engaged in a protacted armed standoff, denying legitimate Federal authority. Sucks to be them, sorry they are dead, thats what happens when you rise up against the govt. Much like people who get killed during traffic stops, comply and ye shall live resist and you die. I mean how long should the Federal, State, and local authorities be expected to wait before they deal with a compound full of armed insurgents? FBI agents should be doing more important work they are better suited for, like tracking down dry cleaners who sold a Navy owned blanket on Ebay and repeatedly ignoring urgent tips from flight instructors, than negotiating ad nauseum with a bunch of nuts who opened up on the BATF. Delta and DEVGRU are specifically intended to deal with that kind of threat, and as much as I loathe all things Clinton, I can not fault him for bringing that fiasco to a close with the application of Delta. Cops, even SWAT team cops, are not intended to handle that type of threat... Civilian authorities do not have the resources to take on heavily armed forces in a lengthy seige. Look at what happened with the nut with the tank in Granby, Colorodo or the infamous shootout in the Los Angeles bank robbery.

MmeGigs -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 6:21:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator Now that Im divorced I dont have any kids in the house, but when I did they knew if you touch daddys gun you better shoot yourself in the head with it because if he finds out that you did, and you are still alive, you will wish you werent. I am sure I will get shit about this - but when I found out that my stepson violated the "do not touch a gun unless I am present" rule - I made him pick out his five favorite toys and then I blew them away. That was a powerful lesson. Wow. I can't begin to tell you how repulsive I find this. I'm sure that it was a powerful lesson, but a big part of that lesson may have been, "My stepdad is dangerously unbalanced." If my kid's stepparent did something like this I'd be having some serious talk with my ex and maybe with my attorney or child protection. This is really scary behavior. quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator We dont need gun laws, we need responsible parents. Indeed. In theory, I'm all for gun rights. It makes sense to me that a law-abiding citizen ought to be able to own a gun. It's stuff like this that brings the reality of the issue home and reminds me that there are practical considerations that sometimes have to trump the theories.

DomAviator -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 7:49:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator Now that Im divorced I dont have any kids in the house, but when I did they knew if you touch daddys gun you better shoot yourself in the head with it because if he finds out that you did, and you are still alive, you will wish you werent. I am sure I will get shit about this - but when I found out that my stepson violated the "do not touch a gun unless I am present" rule - I made him pick out his five favorite toys and then I blew them away. That was a powerful lesson. Wow. I can't begin to tell you how repulsive I find this. I'm sure that it was a powerful lesson, but a big part of that lesson may have been, "My stepdad is dangerously unbalanced." If my kid's stepparent did something like this I'd be having some serious talk with my ex and maybe with my attorney or child protection. This is really scary behavior. Yes it would have been much better to leave him under the impression that guns are toys and that you should play with them cause you really dont get hurt or killed cause you can shake it off and get up just like on the Roadrunner cartoons. The punishment may seem harsh but he knew the rules. He knew he wasnt supposed to touch guns unless in my personal presense. Not just any adult - me. (and that was a rule set forth by his mom!) He knew if anyone, other than an adult, was handling a gun he was to immediately leave the area. If it was an adult handling the gun he could look but not touch. Meanwhile, I get called by a neigbor who told me that my stepson and several other boys were in the back yard playing with a gun and it "looked very real". Well I went over there and sure enough it was real! It was a fully loaded Glock 40 caliber which belonged to the police officer father of his friend. They picked it up off the kitchen table, took it outside and were playing with it as the officer / father slept, and the school teacher / mother yapped on the phone. I dont care how repulsive you or anyone else finds my actions. What is more repulsive is a teacher not supervisng children who are at her home or a police officer leaving a loaded weapon on the kitchen table where the boys are playing. What would really be repulsive is one or more dead kids because they werent properly taught to mind the rules or to respect guns. By my blowing away his favorite toys, he learned that all the kings horses and all the kings men can fix something thats been shot and thats why the rules about guns are to be obeyed. Instead of shattered pieces of plastic, he could just have easily been holding chunks of his friends skull. My behavior wasn't scary - what is scary is a group of boys, 5 of whom together are not old enough to buy a beer, out in the backyard with a loaded handgun! As for the rest of it - attorney, child protective, etc... The father was completely in support of my actions and imposed his own sanctions on top of mine. The father's new wife also imposed her own punishment. I got along wonderfully with the father as he knew I always acted in the best interest of the children - which is more than either of us could say for their mother. I would rather have a pissed off crying little boy with five fewer toys, than a dead one or one who has to live with the memory of killing his friend. All four of us agreed on my strict weapons policies - and would rather have a live child with no blood on his hands than a coddled happy one who gets a " time out " for an accidental shooting.

Aileen1968 -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 8:08:47 PM)
I'm alone in my home tonight for the first time in seven and a half years and I'm sleeping with a loaded 38 next to my bed. And I have a dog.

MmeGigs -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 8:22:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado This isn't about being pro-gun or anti-gun, it is about being pro-individual rights...if it were the 'law of the land', that whenever the Constitution guarantees a freedom to 'the people', it really means 'only to the government of each state', then we would be in deep kimchi. The "pro individual rights" thing opens up cans of worms way beyond the gun debate. Anyone who is the least bit realistic about this stuff recognizes that the whole gun thing is a bit of an anachronism. When the Constitution was written we were an embryonic country with a whole new plan for government, and it was more than possible that this noble experiment could be torpedoed by determined folks with an imperialistic bent, and that an armed populace might circumvent such a thing. That's not the world we live in today. We're currently leaving many decisions regarding personal freedom up to the states, and while I don't really agree with that in many cases, including gun ownership, I don't see that we're in deep kimchi. These things seem to work themselves out, although not usually to anyone's complete satisfaction. quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado But there was no such law of the land, yesterday or the day before... Before yesterday the 2nd Amendment was not interpreted by the courts as granting an individual right to own a firearm. I know that many folks don't want to acknowledge that as legitimate, but like it or not it was the law of the land up until yesterday. I really think folks need to get a grip on that. A small change in the makeup of the court and it all could change back. That's the nature of the beast. There is really not much that has changed, and whatever has changed can be un-changed. DC will come up with some new plan for regulating firearms that I'm sure will be restrictive but won't amount to an outright ban. Chicago and SanFrancisco and other jurisdictions will hustle to rewrite their ban laws before they're thrown out, and there will be more appellate cases that will define rather indefinitively where the lines are, and SCOTUS will be hearing (or letting appellate decisions stand by refusing to hear) many more gun cases in the next few decades. This whole thing is far from a done deal. quote: Are you sure that this LEO wasn't a law enforcement executive, i.e. a politician running for office as Chief or Sheriff? He was a retired career law enforcement officer. I'm thinking that he was a sheriff, but I may be wrong about that. He wasn't running for anything. quote: The policy positions of the IACP are about as opposite those of the rank and file police, as would be the board of directors of any corporation from the floor level union members.... I work with sheriff's deputies and police officers. Those I've talked with are concerned about the consequences of this decision, but don't think that it will make a great deal of difference here. We're a concealed carry state. They really didn't like the concealed carry law. They are in favor of responsible gun ownership but are concerned for their personal safety as law enforcement officers having to go into situations where folks may have firearms. quote: And that is the point I'm making.. at the end of the day, pro-gun and anti-gun, right-wing or left-wing, are just distractions from the politician's game of trying to screw all but the elite out of any semblance of rights and power...and the mechanisms are ignorance, New Speak, agit prop, and the Big Lie. Well worth speaking out against no matter how one personally feels about guns. I think that the whole gun thing is a big unintentional distraction from this larger conversation. We-the-people are the government, or should be, but we've become a nation of selfish cynics willing to turn over control to whoever kisses our ass. We have no real respect for individual rights unless the individuals are just like us. We've put our politicians in a position where to do anything but pander to contributors and "the base" is political suicide. No one with a nuanced view on hot button issues has a chance of being heard, much less elected, but these are just the folks we need. As long as we-the-people keep buying into the idea that politics is a sport where winning for our side rather than good governance for everyone is the goal, we'll keep getting the kind of short-term gain at the expense of long-term sustainability, screw reality if it doesn't square with the theory kind of crap that we're getting now. We need to grow up.

TheHeretic -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 8:30:52 PM)
Nonsense, Gigs. The threat of tyranny doesn't vanish with the passing of time, it only changes in it's presentation, and removing arms from the population remains a vital first step.

cloudboy -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 8:33:57 PM)
Its not rational, never will be.

UncleNasty -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 8:36:47 PM)
[/quote] That is one of the most astonishly dumb things I've read here in a long time. Consider this very carefully. the Chinese government was willing to turn the army on its own people. The People's Army, what China calls its army, did not refuse to slaughter civilians but went to it with gusto. There's no evidence that any troops mutinied and refused to kill their own people. Even if every civilian in China owned a modern civilian firearm with plenty of ammunition that outcome would have been identical beyond more civilians getting slaughtered. Deer rifles and shotguns do not stop APC's and tanks. A squad of even moderately well trained and motivated troops is going to defeat many times their own numbers of civilians with little or no training and no organized units or higher command structure to allow the use of tactics. Guns in the hands of every American will not guarantee our freedoms and thinking that is so is silly. What keeps us free from a tyrranical government is that our military cannot be relied upon to slaughter peaceful protesters simply because the POTUS gave that order. [/quote] DomKen, I'm sorry you feel the need to resort to insults. Meaningful conversations, discussions and debates usually deteriorate when that happens so I'll let you flame out on your own. My own position is clear to me, perhaps to others. Liberty and freedom are worth fighting for. Tyranny and oppression are worth fighting against. If it ever comes to a day when we all need to choose sides I'll use whatever I have at my disposal and will try to go down swinging, if at all. Tyranny is two wolves and sheep discussing what is for dinner. Freedom is a well armed sheep. Uncle Nasty

Alumbrado -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 8:45:13 PM)
[quoteWe're currently leaving many decisions regarding personal freedom up to the states, and while I don't really agree with that in many cases, including gun ownership, I don't see that we're in deep kimchi. ] Which is of course, very different from what I actually said. I said that if you were correct about it being the long existing law of the land that the COnsitution does not grant individual rights to the people, but only to their collective representatives, we would not have any of the freedoms we have today. As the Supreme Court ruling made amply clear, there never was any such law of the land, and therefor the 'if' applies to negate the 'deep kimchi'. quote: Before yesterday the 2nd Amendment was not interpreted by the courts as granting an individual right to own a firearm. I know that many folks don't want to acknowledge that as legitimate, but like it or not it was the law of the land up until yesterday. I really think folks need to get a grip on that Which is of course very different from saying that it was the law of the land that 'the people' only meant the state governments..there was no such law, and you can't find one...the Supremes certainly couldn't, and they were very clear that your argument was not valid. quote: He was a retired career law enforcement officer. I'm thinking that he was a sheriff, but I may be wrong about that. He wasn't running for anything. So he was a non-elected sheriff who never ran for office? Please forgive me if that causes me to laugh at any of your claims to know the least little bit about law enforcement. quote: I work with sheriff's deputies and police officers. Those I've talked with are concerned about the consequences of this decision, but don't think that it will make a great deal of difference here. We're a concealed carry state. They really didn't like the concealed carry law. They are in favor of responsible gun ownership but are concerned for their personal safety as law enforcement officers having to go into situations where folks may have firearms. As I was saying.... you work with LEOs who don't understand that the decision had nothing to do with either concealed carry, or going into a home where there might be weapons present? That is an old TV myth. All that will change tactically is from the assumption that every house you respond to has the potential to contain a weapon, to the assumption that every house you respond to has the potential to contain a weapon, but some of them are owned legally. quote: We-the-people are the government, or should be, but we've become a nation of selfish cynics willing to turn over control to whoever kisses our ass. We have no real respect for individual rights unless the individuals are just like us. The DC and other big city gun bans were fueled by the specter of black people having guns and using them against the elites.... the same elites who control such policies, while making sure to have plenty of 'well regulated' guns for their own protection. Believe it or not, Scalia ironically struck a blow for civil rights and racial balance in this soceity, at the same time as clarifying the obvious individual rights. I bet he hated that...[:D] Arguing against the Supreme Court ruling is defacto arguing for the good old days when equalizers (and votes, and free speech, and freedom of religion, et al.) were kept out of the hands of 'that kind'.

DomKen -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 8:49:23 PM)
You made claims of fact. They are absolutely and easily certifiably wrong. I pointed this out with strong language since it was so insurmountably and obviously wrong. Now you're trying the whole injured nobility gambit. Sorry, folks around here are mostly too sophisticated for that passive/aggressive stuff to work. Admit your error and move on is always the best course when you're wrong.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.201172E-02