My right to bear arms is under fire right now.

[Tavia]

I do have to say that there seems to be a certain mindset in the US that laws are in some way magical. If there is a problem, especially if it's one that gets people in an emotional state, shootings, deadly encounters with exotic animals, etc. and a section of the populace starts screaming about making a law as if it's something magical. You submit it, make it official and bam! Problem fixed! No need to think about anything practical like the wording of the law, does it target the right problem, can it be enforced and is there enough resources to deal with the implications of the law. Which I find even funnier because I'd bet the average American probably breaks at least one law a week, probably mostly traffic laws. And that is probably being conservative!

 

[Christen]

Ah heck you are right. I break at least one law everyday. Sometimes multiple times a day.

What? I have a bad habit for not wearing my seat belt.

 

[tsst]

If I didn't speed I would get run over where I drive. :grin01:

 

[tsst]

 

[the_edsta]

For some balance...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-31-2013/weapons-of-mass-discussion

Mostly just some jokes (as usual), but a good point or two in there as well! Especially the closing point. Seems like the NRA is really reaching for some reason as to why we shouldn't shift the line for what is already banned slightly to one side(other than simply "large capacity, military style firearms are cool and I want them!").

 

[Chip]

There is no reaching in "Shall not be infringed." The founders were very plain in their language for a reason. If anything, the 2nd ONLY refers to military style weapons!

 

[tsst]

For some balance...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-31-2013/weapons-of-mass-discussion

Mostly just some jokes (as usual), but a good point or two in there as well! Especially the closing point. Seems like the NRA is really reaching for some reason as to why we shouldn't shift the line for what is already banned slightly to one side(other than simply "large capacity, military style firearms are cool and I want them!").

Ask Jon if he would be ok with reasonable limits to the 1st amendment. He doesn't NEED to speak out in public. He doesn't NEED to talk about political issues. He doesn't NEED to tell jokes. Never mind I am sure his take would be much different if the amendment in question is one he NEEDS. :headbang:

 

[the_edsta]

What amendment is in question? Who has proposed to take away the right to own guns? This is always the strategy of gun folks.

There was a gun-guy in my area that tried to set up a shooting range at a large piece of land he purchased behind his place of business. When the Sherriff's office told him the land wasn't zoned for such a thing, he went to all the papers yelling 2nd Amendment this and that. A red herring.

If we had bazookas, I'm sure you guys would argue to defend them. It's just a matter of pushing the line of what is acceptable to one side, and gladly, we can democratically decide that as a society WITHOUT infringing on anyone's rights.

 

[tsst]

What amendment is in question? Who has proposed to take away the right to own guns? This is always the strategy of gun folks.

There was a gun-guy in my area that tried to set up a shooting range at a large piece of land he purchased behind his place of business. When the Sherriff's office told him the land wasn't zoned for such a thing, he went to all the papers yelling 2nd Amendment this and that. A red herring.

If we had bazookas, I'm sure you guys would argue to defend them. It's just a matter of pushing the line of what is acceptable to one side, and gladly, we can democratically decide that as a society WITHOUT infringing on anyone's rights.

The 2nd amendment. Sen Feinstein, Obama, Biden, most of the left except those that would lose their jobs if they vote for it. The strategy of "gun folks" is to protect the rights fought and died for by patriotic Americans for 230+ years, yep that's the strategy. Liberty is an awful thing. /sarcasm.

"shall NOT be infringed"

infringe (ɪnˈfrɪndʒ) — vb
1. ( tr ) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc)
2. ( intr; foll by on or upon ) to encroach or trespass

 

[Rich Z]

What amendment is in question? Who has proposed to take away the right to own guns? This is always the strategy of gun folks.

There was a gun-guy in my area that tried to set up a shooting range at a large piece of land he purchased behind his place of business. When the Sherriff's office told him the land wasn't zoned for such a thing, he went to all the papers yelling 2nd Amendment this and that. A red herring.

If we had bazookas, I'm sure you guys would argue to defend them. It's just a matter of pushing the line of what is acceptable to one side, and gladly, we can democratically decide that as a society WITHOUT infringing on anyone's rights.

Sorry, but the USA is NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. You may want to read up on the difference.

 

[Outcast]

For some balance...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-31-2013/weapons-of-mass-discussion

Mostly just some jokes (as usual), but a good point or two in there as well! Especially the closing point. Seems like the NRA is really reaching for some reason as to why we shouldn't shift the line for what is already banned slightly to one side(other than simply "large capacity, military style firearms are cool and I want them!").

Please define "Military style firearms"...

My definition is a firearm that resembles and functions exactly like a military firearm.... With the exception of pistols, these are already highly regulated, since most, if not all (with exception of sniper rifles) military rifles have selector switches which allow them to be placed from single round fire to 3 round burst or fully automatic fire. These types of weapons cannot be legally acquired (to the best of my knowledge) without having a Class 3 license/permit...

Also, look into what portion of the US actually owned these semi-auto (looks like a military rifle) rifles. The majority of the collectors of these were current/prior military, and Law Enforcement personnel... The only thing that the "gun grabbers" have done is made sure that more people buy these rifles and join groups like the NRA. Which is reporting a very strong increase in numbers since the Sandy Hook incident, which spurred this knee jerk reaction by our idiotic elected officials.

Needless to say, that, being a prior service military individual, I would love to have an AR one day, because of nostalgia purposes, and they are great for hunting hogs (which are an invasive nuisance).

 

[Chip]

Please define "Military style firearms"...

It's those bad ones that are just like every other semi-auto rifle, but black and scary!

 

[tsst]

The NFA is also unconstitutional. IMHO.

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.

If one needs to know the intent you only need read quotes from the founders. Here are a few.

A free people ought to be armed.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

I have always liked this next one unfortunately our politicians have NEVER read it.

On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.

To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.

I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.

A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

 

[the_edsta]

Sorry, but the USA is NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. You may want to read up on the difference.

Ugh. Beyond the mere condescention, this is another battle cry that has gotten tired. Trust me: I have read. The constant 'constitution' this and 'constitution' that is empty rhetoric of the anti-government folks and it is unnerving... since what the articles of the constitution actually do is establish a complex, multi-tiered bureaucracy (not that I'm making a point this way or that about it, its just what they do).


The whole thing is so silly. One side keeps making the logical and simple point that we should revisit how we regulate firearms as a nation, as there are already many, many laws governing it, and the opposite side throws out all this outlandish, alarmist nonsense about how we are robbing them of their rights, when no one is at all questioning the amendment. There is a large subset of weapons already banned including land mines, etc. There is no reason we can't have civil discource conerning where that line is drawn... AND invite in some firearm experts to delineate what the most dangerous and unnecessary weapons are (obviously untrained people can't be asked to make these assertions, another red herring in subsequent gun control arguments).

And whether we vote directly or via elected officials, popular suffrage will eventually win out (e.g. democratic process), even if it takes a while.

 

[the_edsta]

Please define "Military style firearms"...

My definition is a firearm that resembles and functions exactly like a military firearm.... With the exception of pistols, these are already highly regulated, since most, if not all (with exception of sniper rifles) military rifles have selector switches which allow them to be placed from single round fire to 3 round burst or fully automatic fire. These types of weapons cannot be legally acquired (to the best of my knowledge) without having a Class 3 license/permit...

Also, look into what portion of the US actually owned these semi-auto (looks like a military rifle) rifles. The majority of the collectors of these were current/prior military, and Law Enforcement personnel... The only thing that the "gun grabbers" have done is made sure that more people buy these rifles and join groups like the NRA. Which is reporting a very strong increase in numbers since the Sandy Hook incident, which spurred this knee jerk reaction by our idiotic elected officials.

Needless to say, that, being a prior service military individual, I would love to have an AR one day, because of nostalgia purposes, and they are great for hunting hogs (which are an invasive nuisance).

I would have absolutely no problem with legislation that made exceptions for some people, particularly trained people (ex military, police, etc.) to own certain weapons. But having split my life between MA and FL, and having had Class A permits in both states, I can say that there is a need to rethink gun control on a national level and introduce some kind of baseline consistency to it. Sure, perhaps there is a 'knee jerk' on the left when a mass homicide happens, but just reread this thread.. there are enough alarmist 2nd amendment knee jerks to fill a crowded pew. Until the gun folks can ease up and enter a dialogue in which regulation (NOT the 2nd Amendment itself) is on the table, it will always be a 'knee jerk' situation.

 

[Rich Z]

I would have absolutely no problem with legislation that made exceptions for some people, particularly trained people (ex military, police, etc.) to own certain weapons. But having split my life between MA and FL, and having had Class A permits in both states, I can say that there is a need to rethink gun control on a national level and introduce some kind of baseline consistency to it. Sure, perhaps there is a 'knee jerk' on the left when a mass homicide happens, but just reread this thread.. there are enough alarmist 2nd amendment knee jerks to fill a crowded pew. Until the gun folks can ease up and enter a dialogue in which regulation (NOT the 2nd Amendment itself) is on the table, it will always be a 'knee jerk' situation.

Perhaps a review of the Second Amendment, in both letter and intent, and the context under which it was written and what EXACTLY it meant, is in order for you as well.

 

[Outcast]

The Constitution, and Bill of Rights, were written in a time where our country had just won our freedom. The new governing body wanted to make sure that the people of the United States of America never fell under that sort of rule again. Hence the Bill of Rights, establishing the "God given rights" of all people of the United States. It is my honest belief that once the second amendment has been wiped clean, which is (in my opinion) the obvious track our government has decided to take, that they first amendment will be next. Eventually, if it is not stopped, no person will ever have any rights.

Your rights to own whatever pet you want have already been trampled on by many state, local, and federal entities, what with breed restrictions and all. When will you get tired of seeing them take from you, and give nothing back?

 

[tsst]

There are approx 20,000 gun laws presently on the books. Anyone obtuse enough to conclude another law will have any impact besides restricting the rights of the law abiding please raise your hand. :headbang:

They are called lawbreakers for a reason!

 

[kathylove]

If I SERIOUSLY thought that giving up the right to legally own some particular kind of gun, or python, or anything else that I don't NEED, but might WANT, would REALLY be effective in helping the public good, then I might consider supporting some sort of ban or new regulation. However, I don't see giving up those rights as anything more than a salve to politicians who want to pretend to do something without addressing real problems. Giving up our freedoms only serves to get votes for politicians who see bans as media opportunities (such as Sen Nelson and his python war).

REMEMBER - the founding fathers were at least as worried about tyranny from our own gov't than they were about invasion from abroad. And with good reason, IMHO. ANYTIME I am asked to give up ANY freedoms, I want to be quite sure that the benefit will be well worth the sacrifice.

 

[Outcast]

If I SERIOUSLY thought that giving up the right to legally own some particular kind of gun, or python, or anything else that I don't NEED, but might WANT, would REALLY be effective in helping the public good, then I might consider supporting some sort of ban or new regulation. However, I don't see giving up those rights as anything more than a salve to politicians who want to pretend to do something without addressing real problems. Giving up our freedoms only serves to get votes for politicians who see bans as media opportunities (such as Sen Nelson and his python war).

REMEMBER - the founding fathers were at least as worried about tyranny from our own gov't than they were about invasion from abroad. And with good reason, IMHO. ANYTIME I am asked to give up ANY freedoms, I want to be quite sure that the benefit will be well worth the sacrifice.

Well Said!!