quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
For consideration:
Just because you believe a right should be preserved and say so doesn't mean you practice that right in day to day life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It's interesting. I totally get arguments like reasonable prudence and prevention, or a love of performance and a passion for a hobby. But these are rarely the arguments made. Instead, it commonly comes from a place of fear.

And it's hard to talk to people ruled by their fear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
For consideration:
Just because you believe a right should be preserved and say so doesn't mean you practice that right in day to day life.

I don't own a firearm. I never have and I never will in all likelihood. The statistics on hurting myself or my loved ones are just too worrisome and I don't feel the need to be protected anyway."

I don't think the purpose of the 2nd amendment has anything to do with my personal risk assessments regarding accidents & criminals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I think that the 2nd recognizes your right to choose whether owning a firearm is right for you
It in no way requires you to own one.
Although I may well have just reworded what you said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I think that the 2nd recognizes your right to choose whether owning a firearm is right for you
It in no way requires you to own one.
Although I may well have just reworded what you said.

My point was simply to reinforce that you don't need to own a gun or think gun ownership is wise in order to support the 2nd amendment.

Back to the castle doctrine, I think that it's pretty simple. Us humans are the most vicious and deadly predators on the face of the planet. So yeah, when you wander into our cave/burrow/home you run some extreme risks -- just as if you'd wandered into a mountain lion den but about a million times worse (literally). In the end, uninvited presence in someone's home is a dangerous proposition and sometimes accidents are going to occur. The other choice... of declaring that a person may not defend themselves in their own home is ludicrous to me.

Gun ownership seems orthogonal to the question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
For consideration:
Just because you believe a right should be preserved and say so doesn't mean you practice that right in day to day life.

I don't own a firearm. I never have and I never will in all likelihood. The statistics on hurting myself or my loved ones are just too worrisome and I don't feel the need to be protected anyway."

I don't think the purpose of the 2nd amendment has anything to do with my personal risk assessments regarding accidents & criminals.

I think that the 2nd recognizes your right to choose whether owning a firearm is right for you
It in no way requires you to own one.
Although I may well have just reworded what you said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I think that the 2nd recognizes your right to choose whether owning a firearm is right for you
It in no way requires you to own one.
Although I may well have just reworded what you said.

My point was simply to reinforce that you don't need to own a gun or think gun ownership is wise in order to support the 2nd amendment.

Back to the castle doctrine, I think that it's pretty simple. Us humans are the most vicious and deadly predators on the face of the planet. So yeah, when you wander into our cave/burrow/home you run some extreme risks -- just as if you'd wandered into a mountain lion den but about a million times worse (literally). In the end, uninvited presence in someone's home is a dangerous proposition and sometimes accidents are going to occur. The other choice... of declaring that a person may not defend themselves in their own home is ludicrous to me.

Gun ownership seems orthogonal to the question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
For consideration:
Just because you believe a right should be preserved and say so doesn't mean you practice that right in day to day life.

I don't own a firearm. I never have and I never will in all likelihood. The statistics on hurting myself or my loved ones are just too worrisome and I don't feel the need to be protected anyway."

I don't think the purpose of the 2nd amendment has anything to do with my personal risk assessments regarding accidents & criminals.

I think that the 2nd recognizes your right to choose whether owning a firearm is right for you
It in no way requires you to own one.
Although I may well have just reworded what you said.

Really? The 2nd amendment talks about whether hunters could use firearms or not? Or personal guards to a rich business man or other VIP to have arms? Or of an individual having a firearm to protect his family from vicious animals as they lived on the frontier of America?

No in every case. Because that was not the original nature of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd is very clear on WHO gets the firearm and WHY they have it. Unfortunately some two hundred years plus, that definition has been changed. The gun industry has a direct motive in brainwashing Americans to think they should be allowed to have any weapon they sell. An those who are 'a few clowns short of a full circus' argue they need guns to fire off demos, hobgoblins, and other things found in the Monster Manual 2 for Dungeons and Dragons. I'm sure the founding fathers would not want crazy people (by 2014 standards) to have firearms.

Who can have arms? "A Well Regulated Militia...."! Why do they have them? "...necessary to the security of a free state". But you ignore the first half of the 2nd and focus only on the second half. And you wonder why you run into so much opposition from others on this amendment? The second half of the original definition you reinterpret to an insane manner. How would you like it if the police ignored the first 2/3rds of the 8th amendment and reinterpret the remainder to their crazy disillusionment when you got arrest for jaywalking? According to your crazy logic? Fuck ya!

It did explain that individual members of the militia in good standing (i.e. they are obeying all the rules and conditions of the militia), to have their 'duty arm' on their person and/or in their home/business. Because when the call went out for the militia to form, they had to be ready for what ever task was needed. They didn't have police, fire, or other services back in the 18th century. There was no state standing army or professional country army. It was farmers, herders, hunters, bankers, bakers, physical labors and so on. History has shown that when those who are held to no level of accountability and responsibility with power, 'take the law into their hands', quite usually violence and hell soon followed. But that when an organization of people whom are held accountable and responsible with that power of law enter into the situation, good things usually result from it.

I'm open to another amendment that specifically states the 2nd applies to organizations, and this new amendment is for individual firearm ownership. I'm sure there would be 'give and take' from all sides in its crafting. An if those that decide on the final wording, the definition(s), and material have good hearts, minds and truly want what is best for the nation, both now and in the future. I think it would result in something good for the nation. Metaphorically speaking, having all those band-aids on the wound known is not helping the patient at all. It would take a well qualified surgeon to take the band aids off, deal with the wound, and then give it a proper bandage. Generally when that happens, the patient survives, heals up, and the wound is no more. In this metaphor, the 'band aids' are all the laws, regulations, and views. The wound has been misdiagnosis (resulting in those band aids). The patient is the nation. The 'well qualified surgeon' would be Americans with good intentions crafting a good amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I think that the 2nd recognizes your right to choose whether owning a firearm is right for you
It in no way requires you to own one.
Although I may well have just reworded what you said.

My point was simply to reinforce that you don't need to own a gun or think gun ownership is wise in order to support the 2nd amendment.

Back to the castle doctrine, I think that it's pretty simple. Us humans are the most vicious and deadly predators on the face of the planet. So yeah, when you wander into our cave/burrow/home you run some extreme risks -- just as if you'd wandered into a mountain lion den but about a million times worse (literally). In the end, uninvited presence in someone's home is a dangerous proposition and sometimes accidents are going to occur. The other choice... of declaring that a person may not defend themselves in their own home is ludicrous to me.

Gun ownership seems orthogonal to the question.

An as seen over the years, nothing is every short and simple. Someone enters another's home by invitation. Due to some argument or demand, the invited are told to leave. Before the invited could do such, they are killed by the home owner. Since we only have the home owner's word for it, what does society do? Take the person at 100% of their word of honor to tell the truth? Or haul them in to a court and let society decide in a court of law?

Laws try to handle the 'majority' of possible cases. But there is no way one could write a law to handle *ALL* possible cases. That is why we have a court system. That is why the accused is afforded so many protections, right to a lawyer and considered 'innocent until proven guilty' in the court.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

The 2nd is very clear on WHO gets the firearm and WHY they have it. Unfortunately some two hundred years plus, that definition has been changed.

Bullshit

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I think that the 2nd recognizes your right to choose whether owning a firearm is right for you
It in no way requires you to own one.
Although I may well have just reworded what you said.

My point was simply to reinforce that you don't need to own a gun or think gun ownership is wise in order to support the 2nd amendment.

Back to the castle doctrine, I think that it's pretty simple. Us humans are the most vicious and deadly predators on the face of the planet. So yeah, when you wander into our cave/burrow/home you run some extreme risks -- just as if you'd wandered into a mountain lion den but about a million times worse (literally). In the end, uninvited presence in someone's home is a dangerous proposition and sometimes accidents are going to occur. The other choice... of declaring that a person may not defend themselves in their own home is ludicrous to me.

Gun ownership seems orthogonal to the question.

An as seen over the years, nothing is every short and simple. Someone enters another's home by invitation. Due to some argument or demand, the invited are told to leave. Before the invited could do such, they are killed by the home owner. Since we only have the home owner's word for it, what does society do? Take the person at 100% of their word of honor to tell the truth? Or haul them in to a court and let society decide in a court of law?

Laws try to handle the 'majority' of possible cases. But there is no way one could write a law to handle *ALL* possible cases. That is why we have a court system. That is why the accused is afforded so many protections, right to a lawyer and considered 'innocent until proven guilty' in the court.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
For consideration:
Just because you believe a right should be preserved and say so doesn't mean you practice that right in day to day life.

I don't own a firearm. I never have and I never will in all likelihood. The statistics on hurting myself or my loved ones are just too worrisome and I don't feel the need to be protected anyway."

I don't think the purpose of the 2nd amendment has anything to do with my personal risk assessments regarding accidents & criminals.

I think that the 2nd recognizes your right to choose whether owning a firearm is right for you
It in no way requires you to own one.
Although I may well have just reworded what you said.

Really? The 2nd amendment talks about whether hunters could use firearms or not? Or personal guards to a rich business man or other VIP to have arms? Or of an individual having a firearm to protect his family from vicious animals as they lived on the frontier of America?

No in every case. Because that was not the original nature of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd is very clear on WHO gets the firearm and WHY they have it. Unfortunately some two hundred years plus, that definition has been changed. The gun industry has a direct motive in brainwashing Americans to think they should be allowed to have any weapon they sell. An those who are 'a few clowns short of a full circus' argue they need guns to fire off demos, hobgoblins, and other things found in the Monster Manual 2 for Dungeons and Dragons. I'm sure the founding fathers would not want crazy people (by 2014 standards) to have firearms.

Who can have arms? "A Well Regulated Militia...."! Why do they have them? "...necessary to the security of a free state". But you ignore the first half of the 2nd and focus only on the second half. And you wonder why you run into so much opposition from others on this amendment? The second half of the original definition you reinterpret to an insane manner. How would you like it if the police ignored the first 2/3rds of the 8th amendment and reinterpret the remainder to their crazy disillusionment when you got arrest for jaywalking? According to your crazy logic? Fuck ya!

It did explain that individual members of the militia in good standing (i.e. they are obeying all the rules and conditions of the militia), to have their 'duty arm' on their person and/or in their home/business. Because when the call went out for the militia to form, they had to be ready for what ever task was needed. They didn't have police, fire, or other services back in the 18th century. There was no state standing army or professional country army. It was farmers, herders, hunters, bankers, bakers, physical labors and so on. History has shown that when those who are held to no level of accountability and responsibility with power, 'take the law into their hands', quite usually violence and hell soon followed. But that when an organization of people whom are held accountable and responsible with that power of law enter into the situation, good things usually result from it.

I'm open to another amendment that specifically states the 2nd applies to organizations, and this new amendment is for individual firearm ownership. I'm sure there would be 'give and take' from all sides in its crafting. An if those that decide on the final wording, the definition(s), and material have good hearts, minds and truly want what is best for the nation, both now and in the future. I think it would result in something good for the nation. Metaphorically speaking, having all those band-aids on the wound known is not helping the patient at all. It would take a well qualified surgeon to take the band aids off, deal with the wound, and then give it a proper bandage. Generally when that happens, the patient survives, heals up, and the wound is no more. In this metaphor, the 'band aids' are all the laws, regulations, and views. The wound has been misdiagnosis (resulting in those band aids). The patient is the nation. The 'well qualified surgeon' would be Americans with good intentions crafting a good amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

The 2nd is very clear on WHO gets the firearm and WHY they have it. Unfortunately some two hundred years plus, that definition has been changed.

Bullshit

Isn't that what I said

I thought it might help to vary the wording.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
There is absolutely ZERO historical backup for anything you said.

So, lets have a little historical facts.

a). At the time of the revolution, each member of a milita was expected to provide his own weapons and ammunition.

b). Great Britain, sought to restrict the rights of gun ownership.

c). The continental army had great trouble procuring guns and ammunition and would not have succeed were it not for private arms.

Go read about the minute men, and how men assembled with their weapons in very short order, and supported each other for mutual defense. Why, do you suppose they were called 'minute men'.


The role of gun ownership is fairly abundantly discussed and there is no such extrapolation as yours anywhere in the first hundred years of our founding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
There is absolutely ZERO historical backup for anything you said.

So, lets have a little historical facts.

a). At the time of the revolution, each member of a milita was expected to provide his own weapons and ammunition.

b). Great Britain, sought to restrict the rights of gun ownership.

c). The continental army had great trouble procuring guns and ammunition and would not have succeed were it not for private arms.

Go read about the minute men, and how men assembled with their weapons in very short order, and supported each other for mutual defense. Why, do you suppose they were called 'minute men'.


The role of gun ownership is fairly abundantly discussed and there is no such extrapolation as yours anywhere in the first hundred years of our founding.

I know you lie about absolutely everything  but this is a very easily verifiable historical fact.

What was the British Army marching to Concord to do that resulted in the battle known as the Battle of Lexington and Concord that started the Revolutionary War? They were trying to seize the colony's armory. Weird if the colony was having such trouble procuring arms.

In reality the Army regulars were armed by the government in standard fashion. It was only the irregulars, which were of virtually no use in any of the major battles, that supplied their own arms.