Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: What if it wasn't a gun?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/19/2014 7:42:52 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		I don't see how your point opposes gun control -- it appears to support the militia argument.


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/19/2014 8:02:03 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I don't see how your point opposes gun control -- it appears to support the militia argument.





It was not meant to oppose gun control, all it was meant to do was tell these people that claim there are no legal state militias they are full of it.

As for gun laws that make sense:

1) Owners of guns used by minors to shoot up a school should be tried as accessories before and after the fact for leaving the weapon unsecured.

2) Mental health records part of the back ground check database.

Now considering the local drivers, I think that armored vehicles be street legal, not weaponized, just legal. But that is another issue.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/19/2014 10:02:52 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

As for gun laws that make sense:





My old .38 special (Taurus) had a very clever integrated lock on the hammer that will also lock the slide on an automatic. I could easily get behind a requirement that all new guns sold (after a reasonable retooling period) have such a feature.

The best thing about it is that someone playing with a stolen gun wouldn't even realize it was there unless they knew to look for it, and they would still need a special key before the weapon would be functional.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A_dt8lKpRA - 30 second demo video

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/19/2014 10:11:03 PM   
truckinslave


Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

was tell these people that claim there are no legal state militias they are full of it.


Which begs the question: Are there any illegal state militias? (Let's see.... freedom of assembly..... 2nd Amendment.....
an armed group planning treason/sedition/insurrection doesn't fit any known (or unknown hehehe) definition of "state militia").....)

Offhand, I rather think not.
(As distinctly opposed to so many who would rather not think. Onhand or off).

_____________________________

1. Islam and sharia are indivisible.
2. Sharia is barbaric, homophobic, violent, and inimical to the most basic Western values (including free speech and freedom of religion). (Yeah, I know: SEE: Irony 101).
ERGO: Islam has no place in America.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/20/2014 4:22:39 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
This may surprise many of you people advocating gun control on the grounds that the National Guard replaced the state militias.

Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 22 states, plus Puerto Rico, have active SDFs with different levels of activity, support, and strength. State defense forces generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions. Most SDFs are organized as army units, but air and naval units also exist.

The federal government recognizes state defense forces under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that state defense forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces of the United States,


Old North Bridge

'Five companies of militiaman'.....actually a hodge-podge of militias from several different surrounding towns. The Ayer, MA militia was in the vanguard position, since the Concord, MA militia members did not all have bayonets. Usually when groups of militias moved into town, the vanguard position would be reserved for the 'town to be entered' militia. So if they were entering Danvers (MA), the Danvers militia would be at the front of the whole group. There were four casualties in that fight, all of them being redcoats.

Militias were not thought in the 18th century as being solely the state's domain. No one joined 'the state militia', but were assumed part of their local town/city's militia....unless...there were specific reasons (i.e. penalty). At one point the states formed their own militias at the state level to help regulate them better. But there were many hold outs even at that time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
So, the 2nd amendment still applies as to regards of militias, at least those under the authority of the State Governor.


The governor of a state could have called up local militia's before hand. That was considered 'covered' in the 2nd. For issues of domestic problems (i.e. floods, fires, Indians, bandits on the roads, etc.) and foreign threats (opposing nations, Indians, etc.). The governor had many powers with the militias BUT could not order a specific militia to surrender its arms ("....will not be infringed." That part of the 2nd means (at that time) a local militia having obtain orders from a governor to surrender their weapons, would not have to follow it, and still be considered 'free of being traitors' under the law. The militia would then have to take a vote on whether to disarm or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
This fact also voids the argument that the 2nd amendment only meant muskets, so in the words of Roy Clark, "Put that in your peacepipe and smoke it Minihaha."


If you can find me a document that shows the founding fathers were well aware of an individual infantry firearm capable of firing 30-50 well accurate, 'musket balls', in 3-5 seconds, at over 300 yards away, and be ready to re-fire another 30-50 said 'musket balls' 5-8 seconds later.....you would have a point. Frankly I think those founding fathers would be stunned into silence at the raw power modern day firearms have on the human body. They're 'engines of war' were horse-portable 5-10 pound cannons. How would they react to a platoon of M-1 Abrams assaulting a position?

There will not be any such documents, since they had no idea what would happen in the country five years ahead let along 200+ years. Can you tell me what sort of individual weapons will be around, 200+ years from now, assuming technology keeps advancing at its present pace?

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/20/2014 4:32:18 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
quote:

was tell these people that claim there are no legal state militias they are full of it.

Which begs the question: Are there any illegal state militias? (Let's see.... freedom of assembly..... 2nd Amendment.....
an armed group planning treason/sedition/insurrection doesn't fit any known (or unknown hehehe) definition of "state militia").....)


Is the militia 'well regulated'? Does it have a specific command structure? Does it have rules on what defines the individual as part of the militia? Do they have restrictions on how, where, and why, they can use their powers as a militia? Do the obey a civilian group/authority (i.e. town, state, federal)? Do they obey the commands (with except to surrendering their arms) of a command authority (be in civilian or military) that is of a different political viewpoint? Meaning, does the militia, composed of Tea Party types, obey the orders of President Obama, if such orders were directed to them? Does this militia have penalties for failure to be lawful and in good standing with said militia and the society to which it lives in?

The answer would have to be 'yes' in all the questions, for it to be a 'legal militia'. That's not counting laws set up in the states (and later the federal level).

A pseudo-militia planning treason, sedition, and/or insurrection, would NOT be protected under the 2nd amendment. Since that militia would NOT be operating in the best interests of a free state.



(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/20/2014 4:46:21 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
2) Mental health records part of the back ground check database.


Only problem here is that a physician, psychologist or psychiatrist, would not put such information on public display if such a law was put into place. It would exceptionally left as vague as possible. Not to hide things from the law, but to follow the 'patient-doctor privilege'.

Likewise, its tough enough getting people that have firearms to see one of these professionals by family members who are concern for their mental and/or emotional welfare. I have known scores of US Soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. After a fifteen minute chat with them, I could tell you which ones needed professional help. And I could tell you how many of those would NEVER seek it, if those records were made public record (i.e. none).

Most people jlf, do not understand even the very basics of mental and emotional illnesses, how they are diagnosed, and treated. And you want these people creating laws to combat this problem? They'll make it worst!

As it concerns a 'background' check, a simple 'yes/no' question would be the responsibility of the person's primary physician and/or the person treating them for a mental/emotional problem. Would take some tinkering to allow the primary care physician to access who gave the 'yes/no' answer and over-ride it; but not the specific information of that person (beyond their name, state license number, and location of practice) that signed off on the question. If a physician did over-ride it, it would be the physicians fault if that person later goes out and shoots a school full of kids.


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/20/2014 5:34:19 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

was tell these people that claim there are no legal state militias they are full of it.


Which begs the question: Are there any illegal state militias? (Let's see.... freedom of assembly..... 2nd Amendment.....
an armed group planning treason/sedition/insurrection doesn't fit any known (or unknown hehehe) definition of "state militia").....)

Offhand, I rather think not.
(As distinctly opposed to so many who would rather not think. Onhand or off).


Actually, the so called militias such as the ones that supported the rancher in Nevada do not meet the legal requirements to be recognized as such. They are not answerable to any government authority such as a sheriff or governor.

They are organized under the Posse Comitatus as preached by Henry Lamont Beach.

Most of these so called militias are listed as extremist groups by the Department of Justice even under Republican Administrations, they fall into white supremacist groups, extremist religious groups, the sovereign citizen groups such as the one that Terry Nichols belonged to.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/20/2014 6:18:28 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline 		A couple of points of detail where within the devil resides:

The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not mention "state militias".
quote:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Therein lies the legal quandary of whether a fringe group militia is legal or not.

The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 in response to the abuses perpetrated during the occupation of the southern states by federal troops. The Posse Comitatus Act places strict limits on the ability of a President of the United States to use federal troops for law enforcement within the boundaries of the country.
As amended in 2006:
quote:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.


The latest amendment was to add the wording to allow mobilization of troops during a disaster.
Hmm, so when an area is declared a "Federal Disaster Area" the President can send in troops to overrule state and local laws.
Also, Posse Comitatus only applies to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and the call up of the National Guard. The Coast Guard is exempt from Posse Comitatus restrictions as are the armed troops of Homeland Security, FBI, FEMA, and other agencies. And, like a buddy of mine, I still wonder whey the Department of Education is buying assault rifles.

Wheels within wheels it seems.


Carribean Memory:
Bringing aboard a U.S. Marshal while underway so he could deputize the captain and watch officers in order to allow a U.S. Navy vessel to legally assist the Coast Guard in a drug interdiction.

< Message edited by MercTech -- 4/20/2014 6:24:23 AM >

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/20/2014 7:59:11 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not mention "state militias".
quote:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."



What is the first four words of that amendment?

What does 'regulated' mean?

Also, what is the purpose of said militia?

(hint: the following seven words after the first four).

That there could be local and state militias was not unheard of in the 18th and 19th centuries. And their forming was due to the fact the nation did not have a standing police force nor a standing army. The citizens wanted to make sure these militias could not take over and bring about a tyrannical government. Hence, when the word 'regulated' is place there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
Therein lies the legal quandary of whether a fringe group militia is legal or not.


Does this particular militia:

A ) Have a set of rules and regulations on how it operates in all circumstance?
B ) Operates specific individual with specific arms/resources with specific conditions?
C ) Does it have a specific chain of command and explanation of those duties?
D ) Does the militia, its commanding officers, and troops, follow the orders by a civilian government (local, state and federal)?
E ) Are there penalties, and if so, what are they, for any member of group of whole, that steps outside of the regulations from item 'A' above?
F ) Does the militia obey a civilian authority that has a political view different from its own? (Would a group of Tea Partiers obey President Obama?).

The answer would have to be 'yes' to each question with no exceptions, for it to be "a well regulated militia..." as described under the 2nd amendment. Now then, since the 18th century, the states and Federal government has places additional laws for determining how these militias will handle things. A '...fringe militia...' from your example would not be a militia under the 2nd; but rather a group more likely to break laws, threaten citizens, and create circumstance that do not protect or promote trust of the citizenry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 in response to the abuses perpetrated during the occupation of the southern states by federal troops. The Posse Comitatus Act places strict limits on the ability of a President of the United States to use federal troops for law enforcement within the boundaries of the country.


The 2nd amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act are two very different things. The first establishes the existence of militias and how they would operate. The second is a limitation of a standing military operating in a domestic set of circumstances. How many regulations and rules does the US Military operate on compared to that fringe militia?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
Hmm, so when an area is declared a "Federal Disaster Area" the President can send in troops to overrule state and local laws.


Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy. That's all that is! The President could authorize the US Military to help an area declared "A Federal Disaster Area" to help those already there. When such things have taken place, we do not see M-1 Battle tanks, nor B-52 bombers, not even a single Carrier Task Force. Note what we do see, is the men and women of the US Military using their skills to help the good people out of some really hellish conditions. Getting them to safety, and protecting them from those that would prey on their vulnerabilities. Notice all those helicopters in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina? That was the US military aiding local and state groups. Makes me wonder if the US Military hasn't been deployed to help counter drug smugglers or other threats? How much of Tom Clancy's "Rainbow Six" is based on reality....

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
Also, Posse Comitatus only applies to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and the call up of the National Guard. The Coast Guard is exempt from Posse Comitatus restrictions as are the armed troops of Homeland Security, FBI, FEMA, and other agencies. And, like a buddy of mine, I still wonder whey the Department of Education is buying assault rifles.


The United States Military is composed of the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, and the US Marine Corp. The Coast Guard was under the US Military until it was shifted to Homeland Security under the Bush Administration of 2000-2004. The FBI, FEMA, Secret Service, US Marshals, and others are for handling domestic issues and so would not fall under the US Military and Posse Comitatus (because that law is tied directly to the US Military). That these organizations have access to military level equipment does go with the territory that criminals will use said weapons. The 1997 North Ridge Shootout, is one example why police forces have access to military grade weapons and equipment.

The Department of Education purchased 27 shotguns to update the arsenal for the Office of Inspector General. This would be the law enforcement section of the department. Oh, and this article is dated 2010. Which makes me wonder why its taken you over three years to understand WHY that organization purchased the guns....

....Took me all of five minutes.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
Carribean Memory:
Bringing aboard a U.S. Marshal while underway so he could deputize the captain and watch officers in order to allow a U.S. Navy vessel to legally assist the Coast Guard in a drug interdiction.


Got a source for this wild and crazy story of yours?

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/20/2014 8:03:53 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		What is the purpose of rhetorical questions? Do they really elicit information? Or do they try to pass off assumptions as factually settled? Do they help an argument, or do they merely enshrine opinion?

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/20/2014 10:50:38 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not mention "state militias".
quote:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."



quote:

What is the first four words of that amendment?

What does 'regulated' mean?


"Regulated" in the context of the late 18th century English is synonymous with the modern word "disciplined" or "trained".
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

quote:

Also, what is the purpose of said militia?


Maintenance the security of a free state, of course.

quote:

That there could be local and state militias was not unheard of in the 18th and 19th centuries. And their forming was due to the fact the nation did not have a standing police force nor a standing army. The citizens wanted to make sure these militias could not take over and bring about a tyrannical government. Hence, when the word 'regulated' is place there.


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
Therein lies the legal quandary of whether a fringe group militia is legal or not.


quote:

Does this particular militia:

A ) Have a set of rules and regulations on how it operates in all circumstance?
B ) Operates specific individual with specific arms/resources with specific conditions?
C ) Does it have a specific chain of command and explanation of those duties?
D ) Does the militia, its commanding officers, and troops, follow the orders by a civilian government (local, state and federal)?
E ) Are there penalties, and if so, what are they, for any member of group of whole, that steps outside of the regulations from item 'A' above?
F ) Does the militia obey a civilian authority that has a political view different from its own? (Would a group of Tea Partiers obey President Obama?).

The answer would have to be 'yes' to each question with no exceptions, for it to be "a well regulated militia..." as described under the 2nd amendment. Now then, since the 18th century, the states and Federal government has places additional laws for determining how these militias will handle things. A '...fringe militia...' from your example would not be a militia under the 2nd; but rather a group more likely to break laws, threaten citizens, and create circumstance that do not protect or promote trust of the citizenry.


Volume 10 Section 311 of United States Code
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
[
quote:

i] (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

See (2) above as an example of why I stated that fringe group militias may or may not be considered a valid militia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 in response to the abuses perpetrated during the occupation of the southern states by federal troops. The Posse Comitatus Act places strict limits on the ability of a President of the United States to use federal troops for law enforcement within the boundaries of the country.


quote:

The 2nd amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act are two very different things. The first establishes the existence of militias and how they would operate. The second is a limitation of a standing military operating in a domestic set of circumstances. How many regulations and rules does the US Military operate on compared to that fringe militia?


It doesn't. Two separate issues addressed there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
Hmm, so when an area is declared a "Federal Disaster Area" the President can send in troops to overrule state and local laws.


quote:

Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy. That's all that is! The President could authorize the US Military to help an area declared "A Federal Disaster Area" to help those already there. When such things have taken place, we do not see M-1 Battle tanks, nor B-52 bombers, not even a single Carrier Task Force. Note what we do see, is the men and women of the US Military using their skills to help the good people out of some really hellish conditions. Getting them to safety, and protecting them from those that would prey on their vulnerabilities. Notice all those helicopters in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina? That was the US military aiding local and state groups. Makes me wonder if the US Military hasn't been deployed to help counter drug smugglers or other threats? How much of Tom Clancy's "Rainbow Six" is based on reality....

And the question is whether the POTUS could use the federal disaster declaration for a personal agenda. Something that could be considered. Not all sitting Presidents or their appointed delegates have acted honorably always.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
Also, Posse Comitatus only applies to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and the call up of the National Guard. The Coast Guard is exempt from Posse Comitatus restrictions as are the armed troops of Homeland Security, FBI, FEMA, and other agencies. And, like a buddy of mine, I still wonder whey the Department of Education is buying assault rifles.


quote:

The United States Military is composed of the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, and the US Marine Corp. The Coast Guard was under the US Military until it was shifted to Homeland Security under the Bush Administration of 2000-2004. The FBI, FEMA, Secret Service, US Marshals, and others are for handling domestic issues and so would not fall under the US Military and Posse Comitatus (because that law is tied directly to the US Military). That these organizations have access to military level equipment does go with the territory that criminals will use said weapons. The 1997 North Ridge Shootout, is one example why police forces have access to military grade weapons and equipment.


The Coast Guard, before Homeland Security, was under the Treasury Department in peacetime and the Navy during wartime.
What I find questionable is domestic police arming in combat gear and using wartime tactics excessively. We have insufficient oversight of the watchmen in the use of combat tactics against citizens.
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america
quote:


The Department of Education purchased 27 shotguns to update the arsenal for the Office of Inspector General. This would be the law enforcement section of the department. Oh, and this article is dated 2010. Which makes me wonder why its taken you over three years to understand WHY that organization purchased the guns....


And the portion of the Education Department that inspects the overseers of education policy needs firearms to protect themselves from the educators they are inspecting?

An inspector general is an investigative official in a civil or military organization. Yes, I question whether inspectors of educational institutions need armament. Or whether there should be any "police" section of a Department of Education. That is what actual police departments are for.



quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
Carribean Memory:
Bringing aboard a U.S. Marshal while underway so he could deputize the captain and watch officers in order to allow a U.S. Navy vessel to legally assist the Coast Guard in a drug interdiction.


quote:

Got a source for this wild and crazy story of yours?


Sure do. Being there.
Still happens:
http://navyleague.org/seapower_mag/sept2001/forward_edge_of_drug.htm

I mentioned it as an example of how it was done, legally, in light of Posse Comitatus.

And, Military surveillance crafts often feed situational intelligence to Coast Guard enforcement missions.

Not a wild ass story at all but a mention of one type of mission.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/20/2014 3:52:57 PM   
evesgrden


Posts: 597
Joined: 6/9/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What is the purpose of rhetorical questions? Do they really elicit information? Or do they try to pass off assumptions as factually settled? Do they help an argument, or do they merely enshrine opinion?



What's rhetorical?

Are you part of a well regulated militia? If not, then one could argue that the right to bear arms does not apply to you.

I have no military training. I have no regulations that I must follow other than those of my municipality, state and country... like all citizens. No one who can tell me to stand guard or scrub a latrine, or pitch a tent or send a message.

Since I am not part of even a poorly regulated militia, my right to bear arms could arguably be infringed.

That said, there's not reason that I shouldn't be able to go buy a gun if I want to, provided I get a license (we need a license to fish for heaven sake) and I get adequately trained and even tested (I had to do that to drive a car.. and lord knows one car can kill more people in an accident than one gun can),


Should I be allowed to buy a tank cuz I want one?
Road rage could be a real bitch doncha know.

What about a drone?

Weapons of minimal destruction, weapons of mass destruction..... should the government draw a line at some point or not?



_____________________________

What you permit, you promote.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/20/2014 4:55:33 PM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Should I be allowed to buy a tank cuz I want one?
Road rage could be a real bitch doncha know.


Yes, you can buy a tank. But, you have to meet DOT specifications if you want to drive it on the street and get a license plate from the state where you reside. You may find that only the smallest tanks can meet the width limit for driving on public streets.

Now, a modern APC will meet most of the DOT specs and is more versatile than a tank. And, it comes with air conditioning. One nuclear plant I worked had a couple of APCs for perimeter patrol and rapid response. Occasionally, on back shift, you cold spot one in town picking up take out for the security watch. Standard military APC with the addition of street legal headlights and a flashing light bar on top... and a company color paint job and logo on the doors.

There was a dot com millionaire in the late 90s that got one registered in California. Had to add bumpers at the correct height, appropriate headlights and driving lights, and rubber treads that would not tear up the streets. The mods probably cost as much as the surplus tank.

Now, if you want to arm the tank; that would be a different story. See the ATF regs on class three firearms then have a look at your state regs on firearms. It is legally possible to get a license for such but an onerous process and expensive. (And bloody well get the ATF investigating you back to conception when you apply for a cannon license.)

Some veterans groups actually go through the hassle. I'm thinking of an American Legion chapter that has a WWII deuce and a half with functional twin 50 caliber machine guns on top. They mainly use it in parades and startle the rounds with a few rounds of blanks.


< Message edited by MercTech -- 4/20/2014 5:02:30 PM >

(in reply to evesgrden)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/20/2014 5:07:38 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What is the purpose of rhetorical questions? Do they really elicit information? Or do they try to pass off assumptions as factually settled? Do they help an argument, or do they merely enshrine opinion?



What's rhetorical?

Are you part of a well regulated militia? If not, then one could argue that the right to bear arms does not apply to you.

I have no military training. I have no regulations that I must follow other than those of my municipality, state and country... like all citizens. No one who can tell me to stand guard or scrub a latrine, or pitch a tent or send a message.

Since I am not part of even a poorly regulated militia, my right to bear arms could arguably be infringed.

That said, there's not reason that I shouldn't be able to go buy a gun if I want to, provided I get a license (we need a license to fish for heaven sake) and I get adequately trained and even tested (I had to do that to drive a car.. and lord knows one car can kill more people in an accident than one gun can),


Should I be allowed to buy a tank cuz I want one?
Road rage could be a real bitch doncha know.

What about a drone?

Weapons of minimal destruction, weapons of mass destruction..... should the government draw a line at some point or not?




First, you can legally buy a tank, you cannot legally drive them on the streets or highways.

You can legally buy wheeled armored vehicles and drive them on the roads, as long as you get them registered.

As for the private ownership of firearms, there is a gray area in the second amendment. In an emergency, the State Governor can call up every able bodied man to help in a crisis. To answer that call is not mandatory, but those that are can be used in whatever capacity the Governor feels needs to be addressed.

In fact, the militias throughout history in the US was just that, for the most part. Standing militias were small, so in a crisis, the call was put out for able bodied men to come with arms to bolster the forces.

As for the Posse Comitatus Act

Everyone seems to forget the following.

Exclusions and limitations

There are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include:

National Guard units and state defense forces while under the authority of the governor of a state;
Troops used under the order of the President of the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act, as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threats involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a nuclear or radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness. The only exemption is nuclear materials.
Support roles under the Joint Special Operations Command

You may also want to realize that US troops can be used to patrol the borders of the United States, should there be a perceived threat along those borders. In the past this meant Mexican bandits and rebels raiding into the US.

In theory, in response to the drug cartel operations along the border, the US could place combat ready soldiers on the border with freedom to engage armed parties crossing the border.


_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to evesgrden)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/20/2014 5:38:17 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What is the purpose of rhetorical questions? Do they really elicit information? Or do they try to pass off assumptions as factually settled? Do they help an argument, or do they merely enshrine opinion?



What's rhetorical?

Are you part of a well regulated militia? If not, then one could argue that the right to bear arms does not apply to you.

I have no military training. I have no regulations that I must follow other than those of my municipality, state and country... like all citizens. No one who can tell me to stand guard or scrub a latrine, or pitch a tent or send a message.

Since I am not part of even a poorly regulated militia, my right to bear arms could arguably be infringed.

That said, there's not reason that I shouldn't be able to go buy a gun if I want to, provided I get a license (we need a license to fish for heaven sake) and I get adequately trained and even tested (I had to do that to drive a car.. and lord knows one car can kill more people in an accident than one gun can),


Should I be allowed to buy a tank cuz I want one?
Road rage could be a real bitch doncha know.

What about a drone?

Weapons of minimal destruction, weapons of mass destruction..... should the government draw a line at some point or not?



When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to evesgrden)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/20/2014 8:10:50 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Ah . . . no.

Take a Logic 101 course. Pay attention the day they talk about Camel's Nose and False Dilemma.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/21/2014 2:16:46 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it.


You yourself have argued that guns shouldn't be given to under-18s, though the 2nd Amendment was written by people who clearly had people younger than that in mind.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/21/2014 8:38:43 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline 		MercTech....'/quote' is your friend in these long replies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
What does 'regulated' mean?


"Regulated" in the context of the late 18th century English is synonymous with the modern word "disciplined" or "trained".
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html


That would eliminate most modern firearm users. The 'bar' back in the 18th century was whether someone could correctly fire the musket. Hitting a target accurately with an unrifled weapon was not a piece of cake like modern arms. Likewise, loading it quickly (while under fire) was not a skill often trained to local militias. In 2014, that 'bar' is obviously much higher given those two concepts have been made easier with technology.

Being 'trained' to use a firearm, and using one under threatening circumstance are two very different things. The first is when the individual has all the time in the world to learn how to hold, aim, and fire the weapon. In the second case, all hell is breaking loose, and most likely the 'enemy' will not give you a full minute (or half that) to relax, aim and shoot them. Most likely they are shooting back

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Does this particular militia:

A ) Have a set of rules and regulations on how it operates in all circumstance?
B ) Operates specific individual with specific arms/resources with specific conditions?
C ) Does it have a specific chain of command and explanation of those duties?
D ) Does the militia, its commanding officers, and troops, follow the orders by a civilian government (local, state and federal)?
E ) Are there penalties, and if so, what are they, for any member of group of whole, that steps outside of the regulations from item 'A' above?
F ) Does the militia obey a civilian authority that has a political view different from its own? (Would a group of Tea Partiers obey President Obama?).

The answer would have to be 'yes' to each question with no exceptions, for it to be "a well regulated militia..." as described under the 2nd amendment. Now then, since the 18th century, the states and Federal government has places additional laws for determining how these militias will handle things. A '...fringe militia...' from your example would not be a militia under the 2nd; but rather a group more likely to break laws, threaten citizens, and create circumstance that do not protect or promote trust of the citizenry.


Volume 10 Section 311 of United States Code
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311


An yet, all the items in my quote would STILL apply, legally speaking. An unorganized militia, to be operating correctly and legally would STILL be held to society. That is what seperates them from being 'bandits' and 'brigands'. Those groups believe they are held to no over-sight, rules, laws, or people outside the militia.

Which is why those militia that oppose President Obama enough to threaten attacking the BLM recently, would NOT, be legal militias, but as criminals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: Merctech
Hmm, so when an area is declared a "Federal Disaster Area" the President can send in troops to overrule state and local laws.

[Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy. That's all that is! The President could authorize the US Military to help an area declared "A Federal Disaster Area" to help those already there. When such things have taken place, we do not see M-1 Battle tanks, nor B-52 bombers, not even a single Carrier Task Force. Note what we do see, is the men and women of the US Military using their skills to help the good people out of some really hellish conditions. Getting them to safety, and protecting them from those that would prey on their vulnerabilities. Notice all those helicopters in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina? That was the US military aiding local and state groups. Makes me wonder if the US Military hasn't been deployed to help counter drug smugglers or other threats? How much of Tom Clancy's "Rainbow Six" is based on reality....

And the question is whether the POTUS could use the federal disaster declaration for a personal agenda. Something that could be considered. Not all sitting Presidents or their appointed delegates have acted honorably always.


That is why the founding fathers places two other branches to keep the Executive branch from having to much power. When Congress gets out of line, its up to the President and the US Supreme Court to bring them back into order. We as citizens have to weigh our political desires against what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole. I believe we can both agree, this is not an easy thing to do.

Could this President behave in such a manner? Of course he could. I however, do not believe he would. Unless the circumstances were REALLY bad. He's an intelligent and educated guy; I may disagree with his viewpoint from time to time, but he'll usually explain his reasoning in depth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
Also, Posse Comitatus only applies to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and the call up of the National Guard. The Coast Guard is exempt from Posse Comitatus restrictions as are the armed troops of Homeland Security, FBI, FEMA, and other agencies. And, like a buddy of mine, I still wonder whey the Department of Education is buying assault rifles.

The United States Military is composed of the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, and the US Marine Corp. The Coast Guard was under the US Military until it was shifted to Homeland Security under the Bush Administration of 2000-2004. The FBI, FEMA, Secret Service, US Marshals, and others are for handling domestic issues and so would not fall under the US Military and Posse Comitatus (because that law is tied directly to the US Military). That these organizations have access to military level equipment does go with the territory that criminals will use said weapons. The 1997 North Ridge Shootout, is one example why police forces have access to military grade weapons and equipment.

The Coast Guard, before Homeland Security, was under the Treasury Department in peacetime and the Navy during wartime.
What I find questionable is domestic police arming in combat gear and using wartime tactics excessively. We have insufficient oversight of the watchmen in the use of combat tactics against citizens.
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america


Now the Coast Guard's usage in non-wartime I did not know. Thank you for that info!

Law Enforcement dresses and is armed to the task it must perform. Sending in two guys to arrest 30 criminals armed to the teeth is a bad idea; were as sending in a force that says "Don't Even Think of Fucking With Us!", sends an all together different message. That body armor and gear is used in riot control is based on what we have learned in society. That they employ military weapons and gear is to handle threats above and beyond normal police work (i.e. the 1997 North Ridge shootout I mentioned above).

Unlike some of these pseudo-militias that hate the US Government, Democrats, and the President; and held to no oversight. Law enforcement is held to many levels of oversight. Whether things go correctly or not, things are reviewed. When the police start doing things that anger the public, its up to that oversight (be it internal or external) to bring the force back under reliable control. It can take hours, days, and even weeks to perform.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
The Department of Education purchased 27 shotguns to update the arsenal for the Office of Inspector General. This would be the law enforcement section of the department. Oh, and this article is dated 2010. Which makes me wonder why its taken you over three years to understand WHY that organization purchased the guns....

And the portion of the Education Department that inspects the overseers of education policy needs firearms to protect themselves from the educators they are inspecting?

An inspector general is an investigative official in a civil or military organization. Yes, I question whether inspectors of educational institutions need armament. Or whether there should be any "police" section of a Department of Education. That is what actual police departments are for.


I have no idea why this specific group needs shotguns. Or any other firearm. Perhaps that would be a good question to ask them....

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
Carribean Memory:
Bringing aboard a U.S. Marshal while underway so he could deputize the captain and watch officers in order to allow a U.S. Navy vessel to legally assist the Coast Guard in a drug interdiction.

Got a source for this wild and crazy story of yours?

Sure do. Being there.
Still happens:
http://navyleague.org/seapower_mag/sept2001/forward_edge_of_drug.htm

I mentioned it as an example of how it was done, legally, in light of Posse Comitatus.

And, Military surveillance crafts often feed situational intelligence to Coast Guard enforcement missions.

Not a wild ass story at all but a mention of one type of mission.


Yeah, that sounds pretty reasonable and intelligent. What you described initially seemed a bit crazy. The US Navy and Coast Guard, working together, makes more sense given their areas of specialty.

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: What if it wasn't a gun? - 4/21/2014 12:53:28 PM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Law Enforcement dresses and is armed to the task it must perform. Sending in two guys to arrest 30 criminals armed to the teeth is a bad idea; were as sending in a force that says "Don't Even Think of Fucking With Us!", sends an all together different message. That body armor and gear is used in riot control is based on what we have learned in society. That they employ military weapons and gear is to handle threats above and beyond normal police work (i.e. the 1997 North Ridge shootout I mentioned above).

Unlike some of these pseudo-militias that hate the US Government, Democrats, and the President; and held to no oversight. Law enforcement is held to many levels of oversight. Whether things go correctly or not, things are reviewed. When the police start doing things that anger the public, its up to that oversight (be it internal or external) to bring the force back under reliable control. It can take hours, days, and even weeks to perform.


Still, in all fairness, there are times when law enforcement and the various internal and external mechanisms for oversight don't always yield positive results. Their reputation isn't just bad among various rural communities, but also in urban communities as well. It seems to vary in different communities, whether people are more distrustful at certain levels of law enforcement, whether local, state or federal - and sometimes focused on a specific department (such as the Border Patrol).

I don't know how it fits into the whole "militia" situation, as they seem more like political vigilantes. There have been a few such groups around here, and occasionally, they run afoul of the law to some degree or another. I think the Minutemen tried to make themselves appear to be "legal" and on the up-and-up, although I think there were still some problems. I think the group itself pretty much imploded when a few of the top leaders had a falling out - along with some veiled suggestions of possible embezzlement somewhere in there. I recall another case where someone came up with the bright idea of robbing drug runners to raise money for their "militia." That didn't last too long, and now they're all behind bars.

That's the problem with some of these groups; they're made up of hotheads and people who aren't playing with a full deck. To some degree, I can sympathize with why many people are upset and pissed off at the government. But among legitimate dissenters staying within the law are those who are a few sandwiches short of a picnic. It's just hard to tell about these "militias," whether the crackpots are the exception or the rule.



(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.265