|
On June 27 2008 04:51 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2008 03:24 rpf wrote:On June 27 2008 00:24 Hawk wrote:
We need tighter gun restrictions, but I don't think a flat out ban is the answer.
Reasoning? How does the legal sale and use of firearms have anything to do with crime? (I assume you're saying we need tighter gun restrictions with regards to an effect on crime. If your statement wasn't about crime, ignore this part of my post.) On June 27 2008 00:24 Hawk wrote:
Guns are too ingrained in our society to ban them outright.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? On June 27 2008 00:24 Hawk wrote:
Machine guns should remain illegal to own.
Why? Since when have the law-abiding been the problem? On June 27 2008 00:24 Hawk wrote:
Make the waiting peroid and background checks tighter, and don't give to felons, those with a history of mental illnesss, etc.
Waiting periods do nothing. They were designed to prevent people from going out and buying a gun while angry to kill their neighbor, wife, etc.; If someone intends to kill another person, is the method in which they do so really the important part? They could just as easily do it with a knife from the drawer, or the phone cord. Waiting periods are a sham; they are nothing more than an illusion designed to make the general population think that public officials have done something. Background checks don't need to be tighter; I already was forced to waive civil liberties to exercise another so-called "liberty." And, of course, I agree with restricting the criminals and crazies; too bad they don't see it my way. Make it illegal for the principle; but intend on enforcing the law, not expecting the law to prevent criminal behavior the way many people do. On June 27 2008 00:24 Hawk wrote:
Carrying weapons—other than for hunting purposes—should be only for police and etc. But other than that, I'm fine with someone wanting to defend their home or work place.
So you recognize the purpose of a firearm in society, but would restrict it to only the military and the police; Does that not contradict the Second Amendment? "[T]he right of the people shall not be infringed. Does "the people" mean something different in the Second Amendment than it does in the First, Fourth, etc.? Restrictions: The ones buying them legally aren't necessarily the ones using them criminally always, but there's no nation-wide regulation of it. Some states are tight as hell on who can own, and others, more or less any assclown can own one. People with any prior mental health issues, etc etc. And if you don't think that having guns ingrained into our society is a bad thing, maybe you should double check the amount of deaths by guns here. Machine guns: At what point in time are you going to need an uzi or an AK to defend your home? Are you fighting the Taliban? Waiting periods: Those are so that you don't give a guy a gun, and then later realize that the people who compile the info didn't give you John A. Doe's info instead of John D. Doe's info. And yes, if someone wants to go kill their neighbor, waiting periods are effective. Yes, you could devise 101 ways to kill someone, but which is more efficient, a semi automatic hand gun, or having to get close enough to someone to choke em out with a phone cord? concealing: When the US starts dropping paratroopers out of the sky to round us up into camps to interrogate us, then you might have a point about the purpose of a firearm. And the argument about IT'S AN AMMENDMENT!! is so old. There's tons of shit that was written into the BOR and Declaration thatt have been amended. Its a 200+ year old living document that is tailored from time to time to keep with the modern world.
I could throw statistics at you, but out of the millions of people who legally own firearms, less than 1% use them illegally. I have to round up twice just to get to 1%.
Since you suggested I check the number of deaths by gun, I suggest you check the number of deaths by:
- Drowning in a bucket
- Drowning (in swimming pools)
- Vehicular accidents
- Falling
So, if your goal is to save human life, you'd be banning:
- Swimming pools
- Buckets filled with water
- Cars
But that isn't what you want; instead, you've decided that guns must be the problem, indicating you really don't care about human life.
You didn't once mention crime, either, indicating crime isn't what you're after either. So, it must be the guns then.
So, what you really want to do is control guns themselves (hence the term gun control, not "crime" control). But now the question must be asked: Why control guns?
Here are my theories:
- You're ignorant
- You're uneducated (maybe that's a little redundant)
- You're scared
- They bother you emotionally
Now, don't try to argue with the last two; Nine times out of 10, gun control advocates cite their feelings regarding firearms as the reason why they should be banned.
"I don't feel safe." Well, you must feel really safe knowing you're completely defenseless.
"The Second Amendment is outdated." Really? What about the First, Fourth, and so on? You've already let the US government walk all over the Fourth; attacks on the First have been happening steadily for years now, but they're more subtle.
So, you feel unhappy that others can own firearms and take responsibility for their own safety. I'd probably feel the same way, too, if I was too much of a coward to take personal responsibility for myself. It's easier to sit there and go, "Oh, but that's the job of the police," despite the SCOTUS ruling on 10 separate occasions that the job of the police is not to protect individuals. It's always easier to blame someone else, which really seems to be a recurring pattern lately: It's always someone else's fault, you should sue them for it, and just blame everyone but yourself. You wouldn't want to hurt your own self-esteem, would you?
You've been led to believe that firearms are somehow inherently dangerous to your well-being. Fox News tells you that having a firearm around you means it'll kill you--and you believe it.
Chances are, you're just another sheep who listens to the talking heads on the TV. They wouldn't lie to you, would they?
I forgive you for your ignorance. You are not, however, forgiven for your willful ignorance. The next time you try to throw statistics at me, cite a fucking source. I would have shown you the same courtesy, but the last time I cited sources on here, I was told I was wrong (because obviously the FBI, NSC, and state raw data is wrong, and one article in the New England Journal of Medicine about guns [?] is right).
|
On June 27 2008 00:22 JudgeMathis wrote:
When I hit 21, I'm going to get a gun. Just so I can be safe vs the dudes with guns. >=/
|
On June 27 2008 05:27 Hippopotamus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2008 05:11 Romance_us wrote:
LOL @ 5-4
Our country is so fucked up. The people with the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING SURE OUR GOVERNMENT FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! Lol... if it's like that then you better also be ready to say good-bye to abortion rights.
I disagree. A correct reading of the ninth and fourteenth amendments protects those rights.
|
Fox news is conservative you moron. You're a fucking idiot, and I'm surprised I let myself even get dragged into a debate with TL's biggest tool. You can't even grasp that the sole intent of guns is to KILL SHIT.
Happy trails!
|
The Second Amendment is very tricky, in my opinion.
Let me quote some things...
+ Show Spoiler [First Amendment] +Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
+ Show Spoiler [Third Amendment] +No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
+ Show Spoiler [Fourth Amendment] +The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That should be enough. Notice how in these amendments, no reason is cited as to why the amendment is in place. The Second Amendment, however, does have a reason. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."
To me, the Amendment means "Because militias are important for states to remain free, people can have guns." If the purpose of the amendment was not to provide for a militia, why add the first part? Why not just say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? There must be some reasoning as to why the explanation was part of the amendment, and only for that amendment.
Now, I'm not arguing for or against current gun laws; circumstances change, maybe guns are needed outside of militias now, who knows? That's not what I'm saying. It just seems to me like the Second Amendment doesn't even apply anymore, simply because it refers to gun use in state militias.
People are saying they're angry the government can't read because of the word "people," well, how about the word "militia"?
EDIT: Also, what does the word "arms" refer to? Just firearms? Or are other, older weapons such as swords, crossbows, maces, morningstars part of it?
|
If you doubt the validity of this ruling please read the DC Circuit's opinion. NOT the Scalia Supreme Court opinion. The DC Circuit's ruling is a long read, but it will leave you convinced.
|
On June 27 2008 06:16 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2008 05:27 Hippopotamus wrote:On June 27 2008 05:11 Romance_us wrote:
LOL @ 5-4
Our country is so fucked up. The people with the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING SURE OUR GOVERNMENT FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! Lol... if it's like that then you better also be ready to say good-bye to abortion rights. I disagree. A correct reading of the ninth and fourteenth amendments protects those rights.
Do you see an obvious right to abortion in:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Cause I sure don't.
|
On June 27 2008 06:54 Hippopotamus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2008 06:16 Mindcrime wrote:On June 27 2008 05:27 Hippopotamus wrote:On June 27 2008 05:11 Romance_us wrote:
LOL @ 5-4
Our country is so fucked up. The people with the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING SURE OUR GOVERNMENT FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! Lol... if it's like that then you better also be ready to say good-bye to abortion rights. I disagree. A correct reading of the ninth and fourteenth amendments protects those rights. Do you see an obvious right to abortion in: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. and All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Cause I sure don't.
That's because you, like so many others, read the ninth amendment incorrectly.
|
Yet at the same time you would say that there is only one way to read the 2nd amendment?
|
rpf is kwazy.
Guns are created to cause harm. Not to prevent it. If you think other wise then you could prolly talk urself into believing anything thats clearly not correct.
edit: that last bit was in general and not directed towards any specific tl people
|
On June 27 2008 07:11 Hippopotamus wrote:
Yet at the same time you would say that there is only one way to read the 2nd amendment?
no
|
Well what do you mean the correct reading of the 9th amendment to be and how do you think I am reading it?
|
I'm glad we're allowed to own guns. I don't know what relation owning guns legally has to crimes committed. I'm pretty sure most guns used in crimes are unlawfully owned (ie. stolen). Furthermore, the way I interpret "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is that the people need to have a means by which to defend their rights from or in the case of oppression. In other words, the people must have a way in which they can revolt against an oppressive body (ie. gov't). That's the way I understand the second amendment, and it makes perfect sense.
|
I don't understand the American obsession with the founding fathers and the bill of rights etc. Some of you are sounding like fundamentalists waving their bible or w/e. What makes the founding fathers living in 1700s any better than you or me at deciding what is good legislation in our time? It like some of you think its more important what they were thinking when the wrote the 2nd amendment hundreds of years ago than what the actual pros and cons of legislation in either direction is today.
|
It's clear that there is a limit to how the Second Amendment is interpreted. Idealogically, it is the individual right vs collective good argument. Your freedom of speech doesn't give the right to harass somebody, for instance.
In this case, machine guns are already illegal in this country. The reason for this is that Machine guns don't have a legitimate use outside of killing fellow human beings, that they are dangerous, bring no collective good, etc.
I think we can agree that it is a good thing that machine guns are illegal.
This specific law didn't ban firearms, just handguns. For handguns, like machine guns, it can be argued that their sole intent is to kill humans, that they are dangerous, difficult to use safely, and impossible to use for any good purpose (and sorry, pleasure shooting is not a purpose).
I don't think that the ban on machine guns is against the aim or word of the Second Amendment, and I don't think DC's handgun ban was either. The Second Amendment doesn't protect the right to bear whatever sort of arm you want, and municipalities / states have the right to restrict weaponry within reasonable limits.
This decision seems to pave the way for legal flamethrowers next.
|
On June 27 2008 07:32 DrainX wrote:
I don't understand the American obsession with the founding fathers and the bill of rights etc. Some of you are sounding like fundamentalists waving their bible or w/e. What makes the founding fathers living in 1700s any better than you or me at deciding what is good legislation in our time? It like some of you think its more important what they were thinking when the wrote the 2nd amendment hundreds of years ago than what the actual pros and cons of legislation in either direction is today.
More importantly, I would like to say that the Constitution was a compromise documents, so it wasn't like there was a clear cut original intent that judges can divine out of the document. It is what it is, and trying to think of what the founding fathers wanted is a mistake. More than a hard set of rul.es, the founding fathers intended the Constitution to be a document that was flexible enough to meet whatever unforseen challenges might arise in the future. It has served magnificently to that end, and not because most judges have tried to find the "original intent'. It's because they use common sense along with what's actually on the paper.
|
guns are so the government can't fuck with the people that put them in power in the first place, that's the point of our second amendment. btw to the guy saying he's getting a gun at 21, you only need to be 18 for rifles and shotguns, 21 for handguns even then you can still use them, I myself have a shotgun and a couple handguns. Guess that's what us missourians do, brew beer and shoot guns yeehaw
|
On June 27 2008 06:43 Cobalt wrote:The Second Amendment is very tricky, in my opinion. Let me quote some things... + Show Spoiler [First Amendment] +Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That should be enough. Notice how in these amendments, no reason is cited as to why the amendment is in place. The Second Amendment, however, does have a reason. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." To me, the Amendment means "Because militias are important for states to remain free, people can have guns." If the purpose of the amendment was not to provide for a militia, why add the first part? Why not just say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? There must be some reasoning as to why the explanation was part of the amendment, and only for that amendment. Now, I'm not arguing for or against current gun laws; circumstances change, maybe guns are needed outside of militias now, who knows? That's not what I'm saying. It just seems to me like the Second Amendment doesn't even apply anymore, simply because it refers to gun use in state militias. People are saying they're angry the government can't read because of the word "people," well, how about the word "militia"? EDIT: Also, what does the word "arms" refer to? Just firearms? Or are other, older weapons such as swords, crossbows, maces, morningstars part of it?
I don't have the quotes in front of me, but Mason and others who are directly responsible for the BoR in the first place referred to "arms" as "weapons of military caliber or interest." Someone else referred to them as what the military of a given time would be armed with. In other words, "arms," to the creators of the BoR were whatever was available to the military.
With regards to your discussion of the Second Amendment:
- The militia is not a military entity; it is a group of armed private citizens who band together for a common cause
- The American Revolution was fight mostly by militias, if I remember correctly
- The Second Amendment was written not long after private citizens were defending their homes and families with what arms they had
So, they reference the militia, because in the event that the freedom of a state is challenged, a militia must defend it against the government, its agents, and its agencies. Either clause does not work without the other.
If the 2A was only the latter clause, militias could be construed as illegal, and the clause itself would fail (think about it). If the 2A only had the former clause, the same thing would happen. Militias are comprised entirely of private citizens, so if "the people" do not have the right to bear arms, neither does the militia they comprise.
One of the justices references this in the hearing.
On June 27 2008 07:11 AdamBanks wrote:
rpf is kwazy.
Guns are created to cause harm. Not to prevent it. If you think other wise then you could prolly talk urself into believing anything thats clearly not correct.
edit: that last bit was in general and not directed towards any specific tl people
So, if I don't think like you, I'm wrong.
Fail-proof logic there, Einstein. It's incredible how the anti-self-defense crowd tries to make it sound like defending yourself with force makes you a bad person. This isn't the fucking UK; in this country, we don't enact laws to protect the criminals.
Whoops, speaking of out ideals there.
On June 27 2008 07:30 HeavenS wrote:
I'm glad we're allowed to own guns. I don't know what relation owning guns legally has to crimes committed. I'm pretty sure most guns used in crimes are unlawfully owned (ie. stolen). Furthermore, the way I interpret "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is that the people need to have a means by which to defend their rights from or in the case of oppression. In other words, the people must have a way in which they can revolt against an oppressive body (ie. gov't). That's the way I understand the second amendment, and it makes perfect sense.
0.0124% of lawfully-licensed gun owners turn around and commit crimes without a prior history.
Good enough for me.
On June 27 2008 07:35 GeneralStan wrote:
It's clear that there is a limit to how the Second Amendment is interpreted. Idealogically, it is the individual right vs collective good argument. Your freedom of speech doesn't give the right to harass somebody, for instance.
In this case, machine guns are already illegal in this country. The reason for this is that Machine guns don't have a legitimate use outside of killing fellow human beings, that they are dangerous, bring no collective good, etc.
I think we can agree that it is a good thing that machine guns are illegal.
This specific law didn't ban firearms, just handguns. For handguns, like machine guns, it can be argued that their sole intent is to kill humans, that they are dangerous, difficult to use safely, and impossible to use for any good purpose (and sorry, pleasure shooting is not a purpose).
I don't think that the ban on machine guns is against the aim or word of the Second Amendment, and I don't think DC's handgun ban was either. The Second Amendment doesn't protect the right to bear whatever sort of arm you want, and municipalities / states have the right to restrict weaponry within reasonable limits.
This decision seems to pave the way for legal flamethrowers next.
Sigh.
Handguns are just as useful for self-defense. Removing the ability for a law-abiding citizen to effectively defend himself isn't "reasonable." That's tyrannical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.lilela.net/wp-content/uploads/ouroboros_lezard_tatou.jpg)
