RE: not another US guns thread (Full Version)

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



Message

popeye1250 -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 11:12:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

Actually, it isn't in the US Constitution, but in the Second Amendment. 

"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."

A good discussion of the various interpretations is in Wikipedia at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


My read, based on my own research into the Federalist Papers and other such documents:  I have the right, as granted by the 2nd Amendment, and it shall not be infringed.




Are you a member of a "well regulated militia"?

Does  "the people" refer to the private citizen or the collective citizenry organised in a well regulated militia?

Was the amendment about private firearms ownership or about making sure states could field armed resistance if the British came back for another try?

You may construe the second amendment to permit unregulated private ownership but, given the time in history it was written, the words of the amendment are pretty ambiguous, especially applied to the modern situation, which the framers of the amendment could not have anticipated.

Anyway, the OP asked for a discussion not specific to the USA and presuming NO such amendment as a basis for argument. Why did you bring it up?

Z.



Zensee, I'm a member of a Militia.
I was asked to join about a year after I moved here and made friends.
And, we're all Military Veterans so I guess we're pretty "well regulated" and of course , trained. There's 6 of us.
And all of us own  Assault Rifles. As well as many other weapons.
We shoot at a Range every two months or so.
And, some wealthy guys actually own Patton Battle Tanks.
I saw that on t.v. "Discovery" I think.
You can look it up on the internet.



MsMacComb -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 1:26:40 AM)

 I believe our love affair with guns had something to do with our trying to establish independance from your government a couple hundred years ago. From "King George" of old to "King George" of new (meaning Bush) a lunatic always lurks in the shadows that wants to take away our rights. Guns equalize their efforts. :)
(And no, Bush is not GOP, he's a neocon. Major difference.)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen


So what it seems to boil down to is fear of others and a perceived need to control others arising from that.

Why then, are we all so frightened of one another? I'm asking that from the point of view of the UK, where we dont have guns remember. I want to take the debate away from the US circumstances specifically, so that we can try to get to the heart of the issue.

E



Vendaval -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 1:49:14 AM)

I must disagree.  It is during times such as these that we most need satire and irony. 
Where would we be without the razor sharp wit of Matt Stone and Trey Parker?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Slippery slope.

When you start banning gun type A, it is only a matter of time until they start wanting to ban gun type B.

Eventually, Kenny is shot by a TSA person as a terrorist trying to take a nail file on an airplane.

Sinergy

p.s.  Maybe I should stop watching so much South Park.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To bring South Park around to the OP.

I think it would be idiotic to give 4th graders a bunch of guns and beer.

On the other hand, being an idiot is not a crime in the United States.

Q.E.D.

Sinergy




(format edit)



Twinkerbelle -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 4:12:30 AM)

Providing the measures in place to control gun owner ship are the best possible and are regulated correctly and thoroughly then there is no reason to not allow people to carry guns.



Crush -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 4:24:56 AM)

Twinkerbelle,

I'd add to what you say is that there have to be penalties in place for the misuse of guns as well that are enforced.
Actions require consequences.   And rather than control gun ownership, would you allow a friendly amendment to "allow lawful purchase of guns" ?



Twinkerbelle -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 4:54:33 AM)

Sure ok i'll go with 'allowing lawful gun ownership' but still there has to an element of control in it whether the citizen likes it or not. Allowing lawful gun ownership or controlled gun ownership boils down to pretty much the same thing. There is an element of 'control' in everything we do !



farglebargle -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 5:03:01 AM)

"whether the citizen likes it or not."

Huh?

Go read: Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, Your State Constitution, Articles of Confederation, and the US Constitution.



Twinkerbelle -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 5:07:53 AM)

Ok what those things state and reality are two different things.
You name me one area of your life that you and you alone have control over?



farglebargle -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 5:10:32 AM)

"You name me one area of your life that you and you alone have control over?"

What you choose to pay attention to.




Twinkerbelle -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 5:20:33 AM)

Ok so you choose to pay attention to the declaration of independence. Is there no outside control on why you do this? Such as parental influence, outside influence etc?
You watch a film and pay attention. Is there nothing controlling why you watched and payed attention? Such as your favourite actress is in it? Its about your fave hobby?
You read a book and pay attention. Is there nothing controlling your attention to the book? Like the book is well written? The book is about a new bdsm technique you want to learn?



farglebargle -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 5:43:33 AM)

In EVERY instance you've cited, you, and NO ONE ELSE have made the CHOICE to pay attention to "Reading an historical document", "a film", or "Reading any other book".

The question asked was: "You name me one area of your life that you and you alone have control over?"
And your examples support my answer. No one but YOU controls what you CHOOSE to pay attention to.

It may be the ONLY thing one really does have control over.






Twinkerbelle -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 5:48:41 AM)

No what i have said does not back you up, it says you may choose but your choices are always controlled by other influences. There is a big difference between choice and control.
 
Edited to add i never mentioned choice in my question i mentioned control.



farglebargle -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 5:52:16 AM)

Perhaps those who experience a lack of CONTROL over their CHOICES would find a course in Mindfulness Meditation useful.

Or perhaps some Ritalin.

Different strokes for different folks.



Twinkerbelle -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 5:58:08 AM)

I'm not talking about lack of control in people, but that everything we do is influenced by other things, people, experiences we may have had. Whilst we make our own choices they are not without outside controlling influences.
Coming back to the actual point of the thread i have seen time and again people state that it is their constitutional right to carry a gun. Fair enough, so it is but even that choice then to carry one is partly controlled by the fact you have the right to do so.



juliaoceania -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 9:28:31 AM)

quote:

I can't believe that gun own so many firearms and expessially historical guns did make an extra effort to ensure their saftey.


His house was cased, someone that knew of the collection cased his neighborhood, they knew when his neighbors would be gone, and I happened to be there because I was visiting there from out of town. I was the only witness. I was washing dishes and saw them drive away with the safe in the back of the pickup truck... it filled the bed of the truck. I thought to myself, "How nice, they are going out camping or something" because the back of the truck had a few things (probably tool boxes to pull off the job) in it, two guys were sitting in the back with the "stuff". Those were the two I saw, the cops assumed there were 4 involved (which was why two were sitting in the back of the truck). Supposedly this was a floor safe, I do not know if it was bolted down, but they took off the front door to get it out, and it probably took all 4 of them to get it to the truck. I believe they did damage to the house if I remember correctly (this was about 15 years ago). So while I am happy that you demonstrate good gun keeping skills, if you have a really valuable collection, I would not show it to just everyone or brag about it.... that was what this guy did.



popeye1250 -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 9:29:39 AM)

I think some may be confusing "The State" and "The People".
They are one and the same. There is no separation.
The state IS the People and The People are the state.



LadyEllen -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 9:34:59 AM)

I'm so glad the thread fulfilled its purpose before it turned into another discussion of the very things which, with the motivation of producing more light than heat, were specifically excluded in the OP.
E



farglebargle -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 9:37:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twinkerbelle
Coming back to the actual point of the thread i have seen time and again people state that it is their constitutional right to carry a gun. Fair enough, so it is but even that choice then to carry one is partly controlled by the fact you have the right to do so.


Are you falling into the "Constitutional Rights" trap?

There are no "Constitutional Rights". Our Rights come from Our Creator, and thus are unalienable.

The Constitution merely specifies some of those rights explicitly, so that the Federal Government won't forget.

So, to a believer in G-d, it's their G-d Given Right to own a pencil, gun, dog, etc. A "Right to keep and bear arms" is thus a SPECIFIC INSTANCE of the general case of a "G-d Given Right To Own Property".





Casie -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 1:45:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

I can't believe that gun own so many firearms and expessially historical guns did make an extra effort to ensure their saftey.


His house was cased, someone that knew of the collection cased his neighborhood, they knew when his neighbors would be gone, and I happened to be there because I was visiting there from out of town. I was the only witness. I was washing dishes and saw them drive away with the safe in the back of the pickup truck... it filled the bed of the truck. I thought to myself, "How nice, they are going out camping or something" because the back of the truck had a few things (probably tool boxes to pull off the job) in it, two guys were sitting in the back with the "stuff". Those were the two I saw, the cops assumed there were 4 involved (which was why two were sitting in the back of the truck). Supposedly this was a floor safe, I do not know if it was bolted down, but they took off the front door to get it out, and it probably took all 4 of them to get it to the truck. I believe they did damage to the house if I remember correctly (this was about 15 years ago). So while I am happy that you demonstrate good gun keeping skills, if you have a really valuable collection, I would not show it to just everyone or brag about it.... that was what this guy did.


In this day and age if you have anything really nice in your home you shouldn't brag about it lol. People are valtures



Sinergy -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/4/2007 7:57:03 PM)

 
Military scholars started writing around the time of the Korean War that the days of occupation of a foreign country is doomed to failure as guerilla technology marches onward.

As the French proved in World War 2, the Germans had to be on 24/7 or take a bullet to the head.  All the French Resistance had to do was wake up one morning and decide it was a nice day to string piano wire across the street for German motorcycle couriers.

Quite a few US administrations did not bone up on their history, hence we have Iraq, Somalia, Vietnam, etc.

This is the part I find so amusing about the Department of Homeland Security, taking my Vans off in the airport, and their drive to do retinal scans for access to the docks.  I dont care how tightly you nail down the lid of the box of terrorism, if there is a will there is a way.

Maybe it is just me, but perhaps if we asked THESE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT and not try to inflict our values and culture on them unasked, we would have a better chance of stopping terrorism.

This administration in particular and a lot of people in general seem to think that we can use technology to overcome terrorism.  They are missing the point.  The cynical part of me thinks they are missing the point because they want to provide a zillion dollars of taxpayer's money to people who dont have a clue how to fix the problem.

Just me, could be wrong, etc.

Sinergy



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875