|
On February 20 2012 03:56 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:47 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 03:43 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:27 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote:
Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West) That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other. It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions. The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns. ugh... does nobody read the shit I post? It's like it just gets ignored... http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13115005534933840095It's not some imaginary rules... I've read your post, and my point is still correct. The right to bear arms is open to interpretation and because of that, it can't be followed strictly. A quote from the first link, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
You quoted the dissent... you do realize that's the losing side, right?
You are wrong. So are most (if not all) poeple in this thread. I understand it's extremely confusing, and I don't fault you for misunderstanding how it works, but PLEASE stop acting like you are all experts.
|
They decided to give up their rights when they broke the law. No guns for them.
|
On February 20 2012 05:06 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:05 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 04:55 leperphilliac wrote:
I own a couple, and still think it's a bad idea. Hell I think we should have stricter gun control laws in some states. I wish in US politics there were other options between "ban them all" and "guns for toddlers." Some people I saw at the range the other day... shudder. And some people the way they drive...and some people the way they don't hold the door...and some people the way they drink...and some people the way...and..and..and...you're treading down a slippery slope. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility, but legislation intelligence and common sense isn't doable. Your thought process is understandable, but when you expand it beyond guns you quickly realize how muddy things can get when you go down that path. Except were not talking about drinking. We're talking about lethal weapons. Whose only intention at conception was to kill.
Your reading comprehension seriously blows. He was referring to the fact some people have terrible firearm handling skills. That's responsibility part of the equation. Therefore I tied it into similar scenarios that people DO have responsibility but act poorly..such as driving. Do you not realize a car is a 3000 POUND SOLID CHUNK OF METAL HURLING DOWN THE ROAD AT 88 FEET A SECOND!? There's some sensationalism for ya. Cars are VERY lethal. Auto accidents account for more deaths than fire arms. Ban cars? Lethal, fast moving, chunks of metal being piloted by possibly distracted, mentally inept, or impaired drivers. Where is your crusade against the lethality of automobiles?
|
|
|
On February 20 2012 05:16 TerlocSG wrote:
They decided to give up their rights when they broke the law. No guns for them.
it's cute how guns looks like a reward sweet for a kid when you say this
|
On February 20 2012 05:17 Alizee- wrote:
Your reading comprehension seriously blows. He was referring to the fact some people have terrible firearm handling skills. That's responsibility part of the equation. Therefore I tied it into similar scenarios that people DO have responsibility but act poorly..such as driving. Do you not realize a car is a 3000 POUND SOLID CHUNK OF METAL HURLING DOWN THE ROAD AT 88 FEET A SECOND!? There's some sensationalism for ya. Cars are VERY lethal. Auto accidents account for more deaths than fire arms. Ban cars? Lethal, fast moving, chunks of metal being piloted by possibly distracted, mentally inept, or impaired drivers. Where is your crusade against the lethality of automobiles?
There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it.
|
On February 20 2012 05:15 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:56 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:47 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 03:43 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:27 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote:
Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West) That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other. It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions. The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns. ugh... does nobody read the shit I post? It's like it just gets ignored... http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13115005534933840095It's not some imaginary rules... I've read your post, and my point is still correct. The right to bear arms is open to interpretation and because of that, it can't be followed strictly. A quote from the first link, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." You quoted the dissent... you do realize that's the losing side, right? You are wrong. So are most (if not all) poeple in this thread. I understand it's extremely confusing, and I don't fault you for misunderstanding how it works, but PLEASE stop acting like you are all experts.
My point wasn't whether this person won or not, it was to show that the law is not completely defined and open to interpretation.
Edit: I urge you to read this.
On February 20 2012 03:58 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:51 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 03:43 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:27 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote:
Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West) That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other. It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions. The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns. It is 100% defined. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sensationalism of "doing it for the children" uses feel-good reasons to legislate our rights away. Fear tactics, feel-good policies, and rhetoric to convince people to give up their rights because otherwise...there'd be murder in the streets! You're deluding reality in an attempt to justify tightening and restricting the free exercise of rights by saying that its not clearly defined. The problem is and people just can't live with it. They'll corrupt, they'll pervert, that's what lawmakers do in an attempt to justify their changes. Sadly the peons follow suit as they throw away their liberties to their all-knowing masters. Why can people believe continue to believe politicians make terrible decisions and are corrupt, but if they take the right to bear arms away in any fashion that they all of a sudden become wonderful and no longer self-serving? What kind of arms am I allowed to own? Am I allowed to own missiles and tanks? If I'm not mistaken, those are arms. You see, not completely defined.
|
I think if a criminal is convicted of a gun-related offense, he shouldn't be permitted the right to own a gun again, but if a criminal is convicted of an unrelated offense (like illegal drugs), then I don't see how removing his right to own a gun is justified.
|
On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote:
There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it.
In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual. Just because YOU don't place the same importance on it does not make it incorrect or flawed. Less reliance on the government is a tenet of much of American social philosophy (and has forged an entire political party based on this concept named the Republican Party).
Get off your high horse and deal with the idea that we value it. Your opinion has nothing to do with this discussion about the application of the American Constitution to our legal and societal standards.
|
On February 20 2012 05:17 Alizee- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:06 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 05:05 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 04:55 leperphilliac wrote:
I own a couple, and still think it's a bad idea. Hell I think we should have stricter gun control laws in some states. I wish in US politics there were other options between "ban them all" and "guns for toddlers." Some people I saw at the range the other day... shudder. And some people the way they drive...and some people the way they don't hold the door...and some people the way they drink...and some people the way...and..and..and...you're treading down a slippery slope. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility, but legislation intelligence and common sense isn't doable. Your thought process is understandable, but when you expand it beyond guns you quickly realize how muddy things can get when you go down that path. Except were not talking about drinking. We're talking about lethal weapons. Whose only intention at conception was to kill. Your reading comprehension seriously blows. He was referring to the fact some people have terrible firearm handling skills. That's responsibility part of the equation. Therefore I tied it into similar scenarios that people DO have responsibility but act poorly..such as driving. Do you not realize a car is a 3000 POUND SOLID CHUNK OF METAL HURLING DOWN THE ROAD AT 88 FEET A SECOND!? There's some sensationalism for ya. Cars are VERY lethal. Auto accidents account for more deaths than fire arms. Ban cars? Lethal, fast moving, chunks of metal being piloted by possibly distracted, mentally inept, or impaired drivers. Where is your crusade against the lethality of automobiles?
based on your logic we should ban people, because irresponsible people kill people. there are plenty of campaigns about better car safety and why people shouldnt drink and drive etc. the difference is people 'need' cars, we dont need guns.
|
On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote:
There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it. In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living.
No, people 300 years ago, who had no concept of modern weaponry and societal constructs, agreed and vaguely wrote about having guns to be able to rebel since they just had a rebellion and now you're saying "either blindly follow what they said, or you hate freedom and are a communist."
|
On February 20 2012 05:25 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:15 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 03:56 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:47 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 03:43 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:27 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote:
Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West) That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other. It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions. The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns. ugh... does nobody read the shit I post? It's like it just gets ignored... http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13115005534933840095It's not some imaginary rules... I've read your post, and my point is still correct. The right to bear arms is open to interpretation and because of that, it can't be followed strictly. A quote from the first link, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." You quoted the dissent... you do realize that's the losing side, right? You are wrong. So are most (if not all) poeple in this thread. I understand it's extremely confusing, and I don't fault you for misunderstanding how it works, but PLEASE stop acting like you are all experts. My point wasn't whether this person won or not, it was to show that the law is not completely defined and open to interpretation. Edit: I urge you to read this. Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:58 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:51 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 03:43 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:27 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote:
Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West) That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other. It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions. The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns. It is 100% defined. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sensationalism of "doing it for the children" uses feel-good reasons to legislate our rights away. Fear tactics, feel-good policies, and rhetoric to convince people to give up their rights because otherwise...there'd be murder in the streets! You're deluding reality in an attempt to justify tightening and restricting the free exercise of rights by saying that its not clearly defined. The problem is and people just can't live with it. They'll corrupt, they'll pervert, that's what lawmakers do in an attempt to justify their changes. Sadly the peons follow suit as they throw away their liberties to their all-knowing masters. Why can people believe continue to believe politicians make terrible decisions and are corrupt, but if they take the right to bear arms away in any fashion that they all of a sudden become wonderful and no longer self-serving? What kind of arms am I allowed to own? Am I allowed to own missiles and tanks? If I'm not mistaken, those are arms. You see, not completely defined.
Once again, showing me that you did not read it.
First, the plurality opinion in the Supreme Court is BINDING LAW. A dissent is a disagreement with it, but it does not for a second change the fact that the plurality opinion (in this case, it's the majority) IS THE LAW.
Second, that question is answered rather succintly in the Heller opinion at 2817:
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N.C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874).
|
On February 20 2012 05:33 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote:
There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it. In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. No, people 300 years ago, who had no concept of modern weaponry and societal constructs, agreed and vaguely wrote about having guns to be able to rebel since they just had a rebellion and now you're saying "either blindly follow what they said, or you hate freedom and are a communist."
I'm not at all saying that you should "blindly follow". I'm telling you what the law is, why it is, and that it's an irrelevant discussion when applying those "devil's advocate" arguments to American law. If you want to debate the merits of repealing the 2nd Amendment, then fine, it's relevant. But as it's in effect today, the 2nd Amendment DOES encompass this societal decision.
|
On February 20 2012 05:37 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:33 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote:
There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it. In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. No, people 300 years ago, who had no concept of modern weaponry and societal constructs, agreed and vaguely wrote about having guns to be able to rebel since they just had a rebellion and now you're saying "either blindly follow what they said, or you hate freedom and are a communist." I'm not at all saying that you should "blindly follow". I'm telling you what the law is, why it is, and that it's an irrelevant discussion when applying it to American law. If you want to debate the merits of repealing the 2nd Amendment, then fine, it's relevant. But as it's in effect today, the 2nd Amendment DOES encompass this societal decision.
I'm not talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment.
I'm talking about the fucking stupid mindset of "People 300 years ago who just had a violent revolution said it's okay for me to own a gun, so it's okay!" If you want to say that we should have guns in our society, great! That's your opinion, and I'm perfectly okay with that. However, back it up with something other than "some people wrote it down that it was okay 300 years ago so follow it or you hate freedom" as has been said multiple times in this thread explicitly.
|
On February 20 2012 05:35 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:25 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 05:15 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 03:56 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:47 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 03:43 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:27 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote:
Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West) That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other. It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions. The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns. ugh... does nobody read the shit I post? It's like it just gets ignored... http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13115005534933840095It's not some imaginary rules... I've read your post, and my point is still correct. The right to bear arms is open to interpretation and because of that, it can't be followed strictly. A quote from the first link, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." You quoted the dissent... you do realize that's the losing side, right? You are wrong. So are most (if not all) poeple in this thread. I understand it's extremely confusing, and I don't fault you for misunderstanding how it works, but PLEASE stop acting like you are all experts. My point wasn't whether this person won or not, it was to show that the law is not completely defined and open to interpretation. Edit: I urge you to read this. On February 20 2012 03:58 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:51 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 03:43 Ercster wrote:On February 20 2012 03:27 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote:
Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West) That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other. It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions. The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns. It is 100% defined. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sensationalism of "doing it for the children" uses feel-good reasons to legislate our rights away. Fear tactics, feel-good policies, and rhetoric to convince people to give up their rights because otherwise...there'd be murder in the streets! You're deluding reality in an attempt to justify tightening and restricting the free exercise of rights by saying that its not clearly defined. The problem is and people just can't live with it. They'll corrupt, they'll pervert, that's what lawmakers do in an attempt to justify their changes. Sadly the peons follow suit as they throw away their liberties to their all-knowing masters. Why can people believe continue to believe politicians make terrible decisions and are corrupt, but if they take the right to bear arms away in any fashion that they all of a sudden become wonderful and no longer self-serving? What kind of arms am I allowed to own? Am I allowed to own missiles and tanks? If I'm not mistaken, those are arms. You see, not completely defined. Once again, showing me that you did not read it. First, the plurality opinion in the Supreme Court is BINDING LAW. A dissent is a disagreement with it, but it does not for a second change the fact that the plurality opinion (in this case, it's the majority) IS THE LAW. Second, that question is answered rather succintly in the Heller opinion at 2817: Show nested quote +We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N.C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874).
But you see, our modern weapons to the original law makers are dangerous and unusual. They wrote that law with only the knowledge that the guns they had were only going to exist "as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." The things you're quoting are refuting what you're saying.
|
On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:
It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual.
Safety in your home you say? Imagine if the burglar didn't have a gun, but only a crowbar? And what happens in reality if the burglar has a gun and you have a gun? Who do you think has the guts to shoot first? Something tells me that the burglar would shoot first. So instead of perhaps only getting a beating (which is unlikely if you just let him do his business and try to avoid conflict) you risk getting killed.
I don't find any peace of mind in having a gun, just think if one of your family members are seriously mentally ill and for some strange reason think you're the problem, then having a gun available won't benefit you. Also if somebody are after you and you don't know it in general, if they have a gun they would have the advantage in the element of surprise, so in that sense you're less safe as well.
I can't argue against less reliance on the government though, but personally I think in a modern functional society the government is better suited for that job. One of the points of living in a modern society is actually to be protected by the government so that you're not left on your own. That's my personal opinion at least.
|
On February 20 2012 05:39 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:37 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 05:33 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote:
There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it. In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. No, people 300 years ago, who had no concept of modern weaponry and societal constructs, agreed and vaguely wrote about having guns to be able to rebel since they just had a rebellion and now you're saying "either blindly follow what they said, or you hate freedom and are a communist." I'm not at all saying that you should "blindly follow". I'm telling you what the law is, why it is, and that it's an irrelevant discussion when applying it to American law. If you want to debate the merits of repealing the 2nd Amendment, then fine, it's relevant. But as it's in effect today, the 2nd Amendment DOES encompass this societal decision. I'm not talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment. I'm talking about the fucking stupid mindset of "People 300 years ago who just had a violent revolution said it's okay for me to own a gun, so it's okay!" If you want to say that we should have guns in our society, great! That's your opinion, and I'm perfectly okay with that. However, back it up with something other than "some people wrote it down that it was okay 300 years ago so follow it or you hate freedom" as has been said multiple times in this thread explicitly.
You are attributing comments others have said to me. I didn't say anything about disagreement with the 2nd as equal to "hating freedom".
That said, it's in our constitution. Therefore, you have three options:
1. Follow it.
2. Repeal it.
3. Move.
If you're not advocating one of those three things, then your argument on the topic is 100% pointless.
|
|
|
On February 20 2012 05:16 TerlocSG wrote:
They decided to give up their rights when they broke the law. No guns for them.
I would bet you broke the law before too. To be honest, I've downloaded illegal music, took drugs, ignored red street lights (only once or twice in my live), and maybe i broke the law in other ways too.
Dont be so easy with words like this. Breaking the law once shouldnt be the reason to lose all rights.
Still, in my opinion you should be able to show a special responsibility to carry guns. Con or not con doesnt matter for me there.
|
On February 20 2012 05:31 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:17 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 05:06 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 05:05 Alizee- wrote:On February 20 2012 04:55 leperphilliac wrote:
I own a couple, and still think it's a bad idea. Hell I think we should have stricter gun control laws in some states. I wish in US politics there were other options between "ban them all" and "guns for toddlers." Some people I saw at the range the other day... shudder. And some people the way they drive...and some people the way they don't hold the door...and some people the way they drink...and some people the way...and..and..and...you're treading down a slippery slope. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility, but legislation intelligence and common sense isn't doable. Your thought process is understandable, but when you expand it beyond guns you quickly realize how muddy things can get when you go down that path. Except were not talking about drinking. We're talking about lethal weapons. Whose only intention at conception was to kill. Your reading comprehension seriously blows. He was referring to the fact some people have terrible firearm handling skills. That's responsibility part of the equation. Therefore I tied it into similar scenarios that people DO have responsibility but act poorly..such as driving. Do you not realize a car is a 3000 POUND SOLID CHUNK OF METAL HURLING DOWN THE ROAD AT 88 FEET A SECOND!? There's some sensationalism for ya. Cars are VERY lethal. Auto accidents account for more deaths than fire arms. Ban cars? Lethal, fast moving, chunks of metal being piloted by possibly distracted, mentally inept, or impaired drivers. Where is your crusade against the lethality of automobiles? based on your logic we should ban people, because irresponsible people kill people. there are plenty of campaigns about better car safety and why people shouldnt drink and drive etc. the difference is people 'need' cars, we dont need guns.
Again need is relative. America is a republic because my needs may vary from someone else's. If someone breaks into my home and is armed, I NEED a way to defend myself beyond prayer. Police can't magically appear there. Even then they'll probably shoot my dog. Its not for you to decide if I can or cannot defend myself and with what. Nothing is more important than life, without it nothing is possible. In fact, I'd say defense of one's life is a FAR, FAR greater need than the ability to transport myself in a way other than using my feet. I can always walk somewhere, I can't always get out of a situation when someone is in my home with a gun. So really, in my opinion, people need means of protection far more than they need ameans of transportation specifically cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
