RE: The US and guns

RE: The US and guns (Full Version)

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

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: The US and guns (10/18/2006 4:45:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Multiply that by one ship carrying 7000 containers sailing from North Korea into Long Beach, and you have 210,000 heavily armed SKS-47 wielding Korean soldiers pouring into the streets of Wilmington and Long Beach. Thanks Sinergy. I have a very amusing image going through my mind.

LadyEllen -> RE: The US and guns (10/18/2006 4:48:28 PM)
One problem with that Sinergy - North Korea doesnt export anything? and any container on that side of the Pacific would be directed to China - they only go empty to that region, not from it. Premia on containers from China right now are enough to send the ship laden with empty containers there. I doubt the North Koreans could afford the bill to charter the ship and pay the lost freight on the containers? And there's still the question as to whether North Korea has a port that could handle such a ship, and the fact that such a ship going there would be observed by satellite, and the troop movements definitely picked up as they headed to the port for embarkation. Then there's the problem of keeping etc 210,000 men in a container ship for the 2 weeks trip from North Korea into the west coast. Then there's the high likelihood of a mutiny on board and these guys turning up to claim asylum rather than to fight. E

Sinergy -> RE: The US and guns (10/18/2006 4:55:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen One problem with that Sinergy - North Korea doesnt export anything? and any container on that side of the Pacific would be directed to China - they only go empty to that region, not from it. Premia on containers from China right now are enough to send the ship laden with empty containers there. I doubt the North Koreans could afford the bill to charter the ship and pay the lost freight on the containers? And there's still the question as to whether North Korea has a port that could handle such a ship, and the fact that such a ship going there would be observed by satellite, and the troop movements definitely picked up as they headed to the port for embarkation. Then there's the problem of keeping etc 210,000 men in a container ship for the 2 weeks trip from North Korea into the west coast. Then there's the high likelihood of a mutiny on board and these guys turning up to claim asylum rather than to fight. E But...but...but... Well, ok. Sinergy p.s. I was trying to make the argument that Kim Il Jong and his axis of Evil people have probably considered this as a flaw in their rabid desire to invade Long Beach with 210,000 heavily armed shock troops and are planning accordingly. p.p.s. I suspect the paranoid people are right, those Axis of Evil people will rely on using their technological superiority in a nuclear arms race to destroy the Great Satan.

MizSuz -> RE: The US and guns (10/18/2006 10:06:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine Another reason the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution was to provide a way for the people to protect themselves from the government (our government). We've never used this right, but the 13 Original Colonies were were sceptical of a Federal Government - since every "Federal" government in history has abused it's power in one way or another, I don't think they were too far off base. Well said and exactly what I was thinking. The right to keep and bear arms was about defending yourself from an over reaching government. Think Patriot Act, illegal wire tapping, the legal ability to drag you out of bed and hold you without benefit of counsel or even a phone call, if someone with any pull decides you're a 'threat to national security.' Think about a president, who swore to uphold and defend the constitution, saying 'it's just a piece of paper.' The constitutional right to keep and bear arms is about protecting ourselves from a government run amuck. Gun control proponents enable the government to over step itself.

subfever -> RE: The US and guns (10/18/2006 10:22:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MizSuz The right to keep and bear arms was about defending yourself from an over reaching government. Think Patriot Act, illegal wire tapping, the legal ability to drag you out of bed and hold you without benefit of counsel or even a phone call, if someone with any pull decides you're a 'threat to national security.' Think about a president, who swore to uphold and defend the constitution, saying *'it's just a piece of paper.'* The constitutional right to keep and bear arms is about protecting ourselves from a government run amuck. *Gun control proponents enable the government to over step itself.* It seems to me that the government has overstepped itself, as you covered so well in your post. So what good did all the peoples' guns do in this situation?

MizSuz -> RE: The US and guns (10/19/2006 6:00:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever It seems to me that the government has overstepped itself, as you covered so well in your post. So what good did all the peoples' guns do in this situation? Nothing, because the people CHOSE to do nothing. If we don't keep our right to keep and bear arms it won't matter if we choose differently or not. In fact, it wouldn't matter now because our gun control laws have watered down the original intent so much so that, obviously, our government can now do as it wishes whether the people are on board or not. So now we have home grown terrorists. Because we, as a people, have chosen to not take action does not mean that we should let go of our right to do so.

meatcleaver -> RE: The US and guns (10/19/2006 6:19:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MizSuz Because we, as a people, have chosen to not take action does not mean that we should let go of our right to do so. The concensus seems to be that Americans want to keep arms just in case their government over steps the mark. Isn't this the reason McVeigh planted the bomb outside the government building in Oklahoma? Who decides when the government has overstepped the mark and when an act of defience is terrorism? When enough people decide terrorism is legitimate?

Amaros -> RE: The US and guns (10/19/2006 7:55:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MizSuz quote: ORIGINAL: subfever It seems to me that the government has overstepped itself, as you covered so well in your post. So what good did all the peoples' guns do in this situation? Nothing, because the people CHOSE to do nothing. If we don't keep our right to keep and bear arms it won't matter if we choose differently or not. In fact, it wouldn't matter now because our gun control laws have watered down the original intent so much so that, obviously, our government can now do as it wishes whether the people are on board or not. So now we have home grown terrorists. Because we, as a people, have chosen to not take action does not mean that we should let go of our right to do so. The Bill of Rights is primarily designed to protect consensus formation - i.e., the first ammendment protects free speech, freedom of assembly, etc. The Second ammendment was also designed along these lines - there was some suspicion of a standing armies, that they can be used to intimidate a population and prevent opposition consensus from forming - also the reason that troops are not allowed to be quartered in private domiciles: difficult to feel safe expressing displeasure with government policy with armed men in your home - anyway, the second ammendment was written specifically to regulate the formation of militias. The idea of a militia is, that being comprised of local volunteers, small local militias would be less apt to fire on their freinds and neighbors if ordered to do so, than a uniformed infantryman from somewhere else with no ties to the comunity. It turned out that a standing army was needed, and we ended up with one anyway - still, there remain provisions for preventing military units from participating in domestic law enforcement activities, violated often, and often with the very results that Framers of the Constitution feared: massacre of union miners in Colorado, Kent State, etc. So, given the changes in how things are, the second ammendment no longer really applies to militias - how it does translate is in the phrase "well regulated", which by defintion, grants congress the power to regulate firearms. It is true that one is often required to defend oneself against tyranny, it's a bit ludicrous that you might go up against the National Guard even with your SKS, but crime is also a form of tyranny, etc., merely the idea that a potential victim may possibly be strapped is a crime deterent, and it does serve as at least theoretical check to military power, should in fact the military, or some portion of it be directed against American citizens in a blatently unconstitutional enough manner that a consensus for mutual self defense forms. I do believe they need to be regulated, but concede the argument that it perhaps not best that the government do it. I've long advanced the notion that regulation can be pretty much provided by anyone, the NRA for instance, who can can, and do, offer courses on gun safety, etc. I believe this satisfies the regulation clause without resorting to federal registration, which I would be leery of, given the histroy of constitutional violatiosn by various branches, or individuals in those branches, of the Federal government - I believe this is in keeping with the balance of powers outlined in the constitution. The only real regulation I insist upon, other than basic firearm safety, is that you keep the damn things locked up if they aren't actually when in arms reach - how is it you suppose that criminals get their guns? Trust me, half the time guns are stolen, it's somebody you know, that you brought into your house and showed off your gun collection to - they know what you have, and where you keep it, I've seen it a hundred times. The argument that a locked up gun does you no good is bullshit - if you are that paranoid, keep it under your pillow at night, just make sure it's locked up when you *do not have direct pysical control of it. My pet peeve with the pro-gun lobby is that they refuse to regulate themselves, and so invite externally imposed regulation - if everybody were to make a concerted effort to keep guns out of the hands of the unworthy, maybe we wouldn't need them quite so much. Money over principle, like most of our problems. Oh, and NG? Tourists are frequent and favorite targets, since professional criminals know* you aren't strapped: they will follow you from the airport, it's particularly bad in Florida where it's relatively easy to get a concealed carry permit and soft targets are at a premium. Keep it in mind if you ever decide to visit.

philosophy -> RE: The US and guns (10/19/2006 8:34:54 AM)
...a thought strikes me.......if the constitution talks of the right to bear arms, does that necessarily have to mean firearms? In an information age, perhaps arms could be defined as access to military grade encryption. After all, if the point was to defend against a corrupt government, a really good encryption is going to be a lot more useful than a handgun. Not all weapons have to shoot a piece of metal at supersonic speed......sometimes a word in the right place is more effective.

Amaros -> RE: The US and guns (10/19/2006 9:07:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...a thought strikes me.......if the constitution talks of the right to bear arms, does that necessarily have to mean firearms? In an information age, perhaps arms could be defined as access to military grade encryption. After all, if the point was to defend against a corrupt government, a really good encryption is going to be a lot more useful than a handgun. Not all weapons have to shoot a piece of metal at supersonic speed......sometimes a word in the right place is more effective. It should all be viewed in terms of protecting consensus formation, i.e., the right to form opinions, express them, and congregate with others to discuss these opinions. The attempt to "chill" or control consensus formation is the signature of fascism - if we need encryptation, then it's probobly too late.

caitlyn -> RE: The US and guns (10/19/2006 9:10:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver The concensus seems to be that Americans want to keep arms just in case their government over steps the mark. I wouldn't call it a concensus. I would say that this was a point of view that was expressed, that was heavily responded to, and brought about further conversation. I believe the concensus is that Americans own guns for many different reasons, not all of which will be understood even by other gun owners, much less non gun owners.

CrappyDom -> RE: The US and guns (10/19/2006 9:31:10 AM)
Amaros, I am surprised you of all people made such an elemental mistake. The definition of "regulated" in the 2nd has nothing to do with laws. In that context and time, "regulated" meant ordered, disciplined. The barrels on fine shotguns are "regulated" so that they both shoot to the same point. It isn't the common modern meaning that ties into regulations. Secondly, as for facing down a modern army, the North Vietnamese stood us down with SKS rifles. Besides, in the early phases of guerrilla warfare a silent .22 would be the MOST effective weapon not a Browning .50 cal. As for those wondering why people aren't yet in the streets shooting people, you have to push people a long way and the sad reality of it is people tend to only revolt over their stomachs or wallets, rarely their freedoms. However, I bet those same people making this argument would be shocked if people started assassinating government officials today so I think it is pretty much a bogus argument.

Amaros -> RE: The US and guns (10/19/2006 9:50:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Amaros, I am surprised you of all people made such an elemental mistake. The definition of "regulated" in the 2nd has nothing to do with laws. In that context and time, "regulated" meant ordered, disciplined. The barrels on fine shotguns are "regulated" so that they both shoot to the same point. It isn't the common modern meaning that ties into regulations. The wording only says "well regulated", so it all depends on who is doing the interpreting. quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Secondly, as for facing down a modern army, the North Vietnamese stood us down with SKS rifles. Besides, in the early phases of guerrilla warfare a silent .22 would be the MOST effective weapon not a Browning .50 cal. Not very effective against airborne mini-guns however. quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom As for those wondering why people aren't yet in the streets shooting people, you have to push people a long way and the sad reality of it is people tend to only revolt over their stomachs or wallets, rarely their freedoms. However, I bet those same people making this argument would be shocked if people started assassinating government officials today so I think it is pretty much a bogus argument. As I say, it does provide a theoretical check, i.e., it would make somebody think twice before giving the order I should think. I wouldn't expect it to ever come to that.

Amaros -> RE: The US and guns (10/19/2006 9:57:41 AM)
In short, it not only a check on the use of overt force, it's also a check on selective, covert force, or the threat of force - one armed guy standing outside the polling place checking voter registration ID's for instance. A much more realistic scenario that has happened on occasion. An Arizona tribe once held off a federal force sent to close down one of their casinos, is the only time I recall recent applications of the former.

Kaledorus -> RE: The US and guns (10/19/2006 10:00:28 AM)
Every time the term "the people" is used in the Bill of Rights it refers to an individual not a collective right. That includes the 2nd Amendment. However, in my experience, it is rare, exceedingly rare, to convince an anti-choice person. I am pro-choice on firearms ownership; it is a real American position. "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." The Dalai Lama, speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate. (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

CrappyDom -> RE: The US and guns (10/19/2006 11:19:32 AM)
Amaros, I am surprised at you. In reading of contemporary writing, it is clear what they meant by regulated. In addition, many of the states bill of rights ommited the section about militias and simply stated the right of people to be armed. It is quite clear what the writers meant when they used the word regulated. If I was the guerilla general and I could get the US army to fire on a huge crowd of civilians with the loss of one guy with a .22, I would call that a great victory. Also, one guy lying in the grass on a runway with a silent .22 could also take a headshot on the pilot of that AC130 before it took flight, pilots are not easy to replace and I would trade shooters for pilots 1 for 1 as long as anyone was stupid enough to let me. quote: I wouldn't expect it to ever come to that. Neither would I, I work hard to ensure it doesn't get to that and I would be the last one to throw in the towel and want to start shooting, but when I did, I wouldn't miss.

LadyEllen -> RE: The US and guns (10/19/2006 11:37:27 AM)
Here's a (probably daft) question - If the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, and the Constitution is the founding document of the US, signed only by those states that were then in existence (13?) - was it then signed/ratified by the later states when they joined the Union, or was it just implied that the Constitution would extend to cover them too as they had joined the Union? Another probably daft question - When the southern states seceded from the Union prior to the Civil War, didnt that mean that they had revoked their coverage under the Constitution? Was it signed again by states like Georgia for example, or again was it implied that they would be or already had always been, covered by the Constitution? Its probably not that much of a daft question, inasmuch as if the newer states and the southern states didnt actually sign/ratify, but that it was just implied that the Constitution applied, there could be a very useful loophole there for those who wish to control guns to exploit - leaving only the 6/7 (I'm not sure) original states which hadnt seceded from the Union, covered by the right to bear arms. Would be interested to know. E

CrappyDom -> RE: The US and guns (10/19/2006 11:40:04 AM)
I would think that the constitution, being the Law of the land would apply to all but I don't know an actual answer, good question.

Dtesmoac -> RE: The US and guns (10/19/2006 12:36:31 PM)
During a meal and wine with some americans the subject of licenses to carry concealed fire arms came up. Most did not have one and did not carry fire arms in this manner. Most had rifles for hunting and pointed out that by the time they got the rifles out of the combination safe in their houses any intruder would have been in and out. The main argument put forward for why some of them were considering getting a license and starting to carry a weapon was that they new people that did and were concerned about these "lawfully" carrying people getting tanked upon on alcohol and using the concealed handgun insted of their fists in any confrontation. Main point, they did not feel threatened and so did not have guns for anti person protection but the laws comming in were causing / potentilly causing an escalation in hand guns.

MizSuz -> RE: The US and guns (10/19/2006 12:39:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen If the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, and the Constitution is the founding document of the US, signed only by those states that were then in existence (13?) - was it then signed/ratified by the later states when they joined the Union, or was it just implied that the Constitution would extend to cover them too as they had joined the Union? State rights have eroded over the years, particularly since the 20th century as the states decided to become more cooperative with the federal government. However, the founding fathers anticipated and were opposed to the possibility of a federal government over reaching itself. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798. This resolution could be considered the classic statement of states' rights: Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." States retain the right to self govern, provided they meet the minimums set by the federal government. They are within their rights to set their standards more stringently or liberally, provided the bottom line set by the Constitution is maintained. A number of states continue to keep the right to secede from the union in their constitutions (New Hampshire comes to mind). To become a state the territory in question must vote to become so, then both Houses of Congress must pass it (Article IV of the U. S. Constitution). Once becoming a state its citizens are protected by the Constitution and are responsible for membership in the union. What creates the difficulty, to my mind, is the economic factor. Most states have given away much of their rights of self governance in order to accept federal funds. An easy example is the federal speed limit. Not all states adhere to it, but those that don't also don't get the big federal bucks for road improvement. The same could be said of our welfare system. So over the course of the last 100 years or so the states have slowly sold their right to self governance to the feds. Since it's been slow and insidious and spanned multiple generations the average american doesn't realize they are allowing their federal government to become a controlling monster, nor do they realize there is any recourse. I'm sure that the idea of sucking in our belts and doing without probably dampens many states rights proponents. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen When the southern states seceded from the Union prior to the Civil War, didnt that mean that they had revoked their coverage under the Constitution? Was it signed again by states like Georgia for example, or again was it implied that they would be or already had always been, covered by the Constitution? The Confederacy (the southern states) was never recognized by the Federal Government (the union) or any other government (in spite of the confederacy trying to get the UK and France to fight for them). Once they were beaten they were once again a part of the union and under the provisions of the constitution. It could be argued that the union never recognized their secession and therefore considered them to still be part of the union. The Civil War did bring about three significant amendments to the Constitution. Amendments 13, 14 & 15, which were predominantly about racial relations. It's only been in recent years that the issue regarding the right to keep and bear arms has been called into question. Prior to the contemporary political climate the right to keep and bear arms was always a fiercely maintained right, even by people who didn't care one way or the other, because it is a freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. Of course, now our constitution is "just a piece of paper."

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625