RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists

RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

cadenas -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 1:11:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales in any situation, the one loony with a gun is the one I'm going to focus on. Gloria: Did you know that 65% of the people murdered in this country were killed by handguns? Archie: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows? I love that joke. But reality is that without handguns, they rarely would get killed at all.

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 1:30:26 PM)
Don't fool yourself into thinking that, Cadenas. It's a logical falicy when you look at the Psychology behind those who Do commit murder, vs the psychology of those who Don't. If you (generic) are intent on someone's death, the mere lack of a firearm is Not going to deter you from persuing the other person's death. If you are NOT intent on the other person's death, then access to a handgun isn't honestly likely to suddenly change your entire mindset and makeup, turning you into a killer. Trust me - there's been more times than I care to count when I've contemplated the havok I could (quite easily) wreck being a firearms owner. (I specify "firearms" rather than "gun" because I own both handguns and rifles.) And yet, shooting someone is Not the first means of their demise that comes to mind when I get pissed off at someone else's actions. Strangulation, beating them with a 2x4 until unconscious and then inflicting the "death of 1000 cuts," smothering with a pillow, rocking them to sleep (with a 10lb rock, mind you) and then tossing them into a lake as fishfood (with the rock still attached); stabbing them so many times it looks like someone was playing "connect the dots" with their internal organs - those are what come to mind. I still have yet to kill anyone. (unless, of course, you happen to count the deaths of various characters in RPGs)

Kirata -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 1:38:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas But at the same time we'd need strict border control checks between Vermont and New York to prevent introducing guns into states that chose to take a different approach. Yes, that would prevent guns from getting in. Heh. Good luck with that. But more to the point, essentially then you're fine with prohibition if the people of a state want it. No guns? Fine. No booze? What else? Mexicans? Jews? You got a line here somewhere? If it's okay for them to toss the 2nd Amendment into the garbage, what about the 1st Amendment? How about the 5th? Hello? Just sayin... K.

tazzygirl -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 1:44:58 PM)
They tried that with prohibition. Didnt work. Its almost impossible to take away a "right" once its granted. Too many would rebel against having to give up their gun rights. And i would agree with them. Outlaw guns and the dealers and buyers will go underground. Plus it would no way deter those who use them for harm, because, they dont buy guns in the traditional ways.

Marc2b -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 1:53:26 PM)
quote: My individual right to live as a free man is absolute. A weapon that is at least as good as my enemy, real or perceived, is necessary to protect that freedom. My rights are NOT granted to me by the state, but by God, or at least my mom and dad. You cannot take that from me. So fuck your gun laws. RIGHT ON! I particularly applaud your recognition that the Constitution is not the source of our rights. I feel like cringing every time I hear somebody say "the Constitution gives us the right to..." Wrong, folks! The Constitution does not give us our rights. Our rights are inherent. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect our rights from government.

Marc2b -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 1:58:31 PM)
quote: Then I read posts like this, think about the poster having one or more firearms and start to understand the "ban the guns" efforts. What is it about his post that makes you nervous? It is a little strident perhaps but stridency doesn't automatically translate to "nut case."

tazzygirl -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 1:59:33 PM)
i dunno.. i think the "fuck your gun laws" may be a bit unsettling.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 2:09:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b What is it about his post that makes you nervous? It is a little strident perhaps but stridency doesn't automatically translate to "nut case." When someone starts talking about the fact that God gave him the right to carry loaded firearms, I start to get a little edgy. Who knows if he thinks God is actually talking to him and telling him so? And who knows what he will tell him to do next?

Kirata -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 2:31:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales Who knows if he thinks God is actually talking to him and telling him so? And who knows what he will tell him to do next? Nobody. So the question is, why does that looney idea occur to you? What, umm, do you think God might tell him to do next? (Hold on, let me start the tape.) K.

Thunderbird56 -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 2:39:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: Thunderbird56 The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That's what all of you advocating "reasonable" firearms restrictions are trying to accomplish ... you're trying to prevent something bad from happening. I concur with the sentiment, but the result is often not what you anticipated or expected. Prohibition doesn't work. Period. It didn't work with alcohol, it isn't working with drugs, gambling, or prostitution and it won't work with guns ... no matter how much you want it to. Ummmm... you mention reasonable restrictions, and then use the most UNreasonable restriction of Prohibition as an example? Reasonable restrictions are the equivalent to drunk-driving laws, which HAVE reduced deaths tremendously (even though they are still sometimes broken, drunk driving is way down since DUI laws were introduced). I consider all prohibition laws to be UNreasonable. Drunk driving laws are not a "prohibition" ... they don't forbid you from drinking, they merely forbid you from driving while doing so. Just like it should not be illegal to own a full-auto firearm, but it should be illegal to go on a rampage and kill people with it. The distinction is not subtle. Now, tell me please, which of the "reasonable" firearms laws you support are not prohibitive? Felons can't own guns? That's a direct prohibition to that person. If he's done his time, paid his debt and deemed safe to re-enter society (if not, why is he being released?) why should he not have the same right to protect himself and his family as you do? By the way, I have friends that are cops that agree with me on this point.

tazzygirl -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 2:48:29 PM)
quote: it should not be illegal to own a full-auto firearm People own guns for many reasons. The beauty, the historic value, the ability to hunt, the desire to go to a target range, something inherited, even the value of some guns are a good reason to own and collect beyond job requirements, what good reason would anyone have to own a full-auto firearm?

mnottertail -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 2:50:26 PM)
quote: it should not be illegal to own a full-auto firearm get a FFLC, you're good to go. Ron

SpinnerofTales -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 3:04:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Nobody. So the question is, why does that looney idea occur to you? Maybe it was the idea that the owning and carrying of loaded firearms is a devine right decreed by God gave me the idea?

Thunderbird56 -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 3:54:52 PM)
quote: it should not be illegal to own a full-auto firearm People own guns for many reasons. The beauty, the historic value, the ability to hunt, the desire to go to a target range, something inherited, even the value of some guns are a good reason to own and collect beyond job requirements, what good reason would anyone have to own a full-auto firearm? Tazzy, that "good reason" is not for you or me to decide or determine for someone else. Personally, I can see no "good reason" in owning a 4000 pound albino elephant ... but to prohibit me from owning one just because I might go crazy and stampede it down Main Street to kill people is not a valid reason. Consider that the Swiss have never been invaded. They are a neutral country, and certainly their topography plays a roll, but one of the major factors is that nearly every Swiss household owns a machine gun! Although surrounded on all sides in 2 world wars they were left completely alone because of it.

mnottertail -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 3:59:31 PM)
no, it was wasn't machine guns did that, they did not fuck in internal affairs of other countries, and made no bones about they would not involve themselves in wars, and did not (had hitler got everyone else he would have owned the swiss as well, but they were low priority) and prior to that, before airware it was the fact that they are surrounded by mountains. Being in the modern world and living in the valley, they occupy the worst possible military position........look up JohnWarrens latest post. Ron

DomKen -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 4:08:47 PM)
Food for thought I hope: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33220258/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Thadius -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 4:12:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: it should not be illegal to own a full-auto firearm People own guns for many reasons. The beauty, the historic value, the ability to hunt, the desire to go to a target range, something inherited, even the value of some guns are a good reason to own and collect beyond job requirements, what good reason would anyone have to own a full-auto firearm? Evening tazzy, To answer your question, with a question... What good reason would anybody have to own a vehicle that can travel faster than the highest posted speed limit? Lambo, Ferrari, Corvette??? Don't more people die from motor vehicle related accidents than firearms? quote: National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 15, September 16, 2002 Motor Vehicle Accidents - 43,354 or 1.8% of all deaths for all ages Firearms - 28,663 or 1.2% of all deaths for all ages NOTE: Firearms Statistics Include Gang Warfare, Self Defense Shootings and Criminals Killed by Police Just something to think about. I wish you well, Thadius

tazzygirl -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 4:12:53 PM)
quote: Tazzy, that "good reason" is not for you or me to decide or determine for someone else. Personally, I can see no "good reason" in owning a 4000 pound albino elephant ... but to prohibit me from owning one just because I might go crazy and stampede it down Main Street to kill people is not a valid reason. I disagree. It is up to us to decide of the reason is "good enough". In much the same way ignorance of a law isnt a good defence, the reason of.. because I want too... isnt a good reason.

tazzygirl -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 4:16:06 PM)
hi Master Thadius Cost makes many of those vehicles prohibitive, as i would think rapid fire machine gun costs would as well. But, it is a good question... why? because it makes you feel more manly (not you per se, but a man)? When that car crashes taking out other people, its no different than that high power machine gun. Another tool to end lives because of someone's misuse. Unlike that machine gun.. when that corvette, lambo, ferrari are stolen, they are immediately reported as stolen... the guns... not so much. tazzy

mnottertail -> RE: 2nd Amendment and Strict Constructionists (10/8/2009 4:20:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Unlike that machine gun.. when that corvette, lambo, ferrari are stolen, they are immediately reported as stolen... the guns... not so much. tazzy Those that can own a machine gun have 24 hours from time of discovery to report it to the ATF. And the ATF would be more than looking askance if you had not reported it to the local police immediately. Ron

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125