I have this to say about gun control..

With advances in technology will guns that spit lead projectiles be a danger to the authorities in 25 to 50 years?

We will be useing light sabers then! LOL! Maybe Phasers.

"Personally, I like the fact that Thirty-Ought-Six was swayed by facts. Not rhetoric or hyperbole, but the fact that states with no training requirement have no more issues than those with onerous standards"
Holy moly, how one day can change a person...raving about ARs killing people and how we have no legitimate objections to assault weapon bans, and how we are all just rubbing our guns in the faces of the Newtown parents...yeesh. Swayed, my keester.

"With advances in technology will guns that spit lead projectiles be a danger to the authorities in 25 to 50 years?"
Pretty good chance AI's will be running everything long before then, and probably by that time there won't even be human overlords giving the machines their marching orders (think Idiocracy, not Terminator). It remains to be seen whether humanity will then diverge into Eloi and Morlocks (although it could be argued there are self-styled Eloi who think we have already)

TCB

As Robert pointed out, gun control is not about guns. It is far more than that. True enough a gun is a weapon designed and built to kill, but it is no more destructive by its mere existence than a speck of dirt. Gun control is a targeted attack on the people's ability to defend their liberties and is in effect a means of oppression by an armed nation. If it were anything else then other, far more effective weapons would be regulated more closely. We wouldn't have trucks that can break through walls and tear through malls, or cars that can go 100mph through a crowded street. We as s group seem to understand this, but some individuals fail to see the wolf hiding in the sheepskin.

I must say he bounced all over the place. That is a shame as the topic is very important & relevant for us all. I would like to see another discussion on this without the craziness involved. The evidence was there, he was given a very well laid out statement by SAM 1911. And treated his statement as a challenge or insault. I was hoping Sam was right about the wheels turning. This should teach us a lesson that we learn from. We are a house divided! Can we reach across that divide & come to a understanding! I pray we can! The Bill of Rights & the Constitution hopefully will be there in 25 or 50 years. So whatever is in use should be cover by those crazy old revolutionarys that brought this great Republic into being.

krupparms said:

I must say he bounced all over the place. That is a shame as the topic is very important & relevant for us all. I would like to see another discussion on this without the craziness involved. The evidence was there, he was given a very well laid out statement by SAM 1911. And treated his statement as a challenge or insault. I was hoping Sam was right about the wheels turning. This should teach us a lesson that we learn from. We are a house divided! Can we reach across that divide & come to a understanding! I pray we can! The Bill of Rights & the Constitution hopefully will be there in 25 or 50 years. So whatever is in use should be cover by those crazy old revolutionarys that brought this great Republic into being.

Click to expand...

I do not believe we are a house divided.

I do not believe that one of the people that has been posted here for the last few weeks lives in this house.

I would like to know how others feel about the 9th.amd. backing up the 2nd.amd. . I feel that it makes up for the things that our founding father's didn't know about, but knew would come. Like a catch all for things missed, not covered, not thought of yet! I could be wrong! But think I am on the right track. Any thoughts?

Warp, can you please explain your remark a little clearer!

I do not believe we are a house divided.

I do not believe that one of the people that has been posted here for the last few weeks lives in this house.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The genuine fudds come around when presented with logic. This individual is an anti, plain and simple. He came here attempting to be a sheep in wolve's clothing (yes, deliberately inverted the idiom). But he is about as transparent as they come. Evidently, he was under the mistaken impression that we were unfamiliar with all those trite talking points and skewed or flat-out fabricated statistics propagated by our opponents.

It happens regularly; when folks with a different mindset decide to visit and 'enlighten' us, they lose every argument until they go away (presumably) disappointed.

One thing about being pro-gun is that you don't have to fear debate; it's the anti's position that is logically flawed.


Larry

I also believe that! I was trying to get past his B.S. that he brought here today & move on with a subject that concerns us all. I also looked over 30-06 post & I believe you are right! But wanted to discuss the issue, not the nut!

Anyone who believes our armed forces will not fire on us if ordered to do so is delusional. If there is a incerection and you're part of it, this government will
have you shot by whomever it sends in.

krupparms said:

I would like to know how others feel about the 9th.amd. backing up the 2nd.amd. . I feel that it makes up for the things that our founding father's didn't know about, but knew would come. Like a catch all for things missed, not covered, not thought of yet! I could be wrong! But think I am on the right track. Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

IMHO, the 9th Amendment does not contribute much to "backing up" the Second Amendment. The Courts have long held that the 9th does not pertain to any limitation on state power, just on the Federal govt.

The 9thA does not create rights - it has been interpreted as being there to keep gov't from denying fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. But it is not a limitation as far as enumerated powers are concerned.

The right to bear arms is already specifically enumerated in the Second Amendment. The 9th Amendment has been argued to be there to say we have more rights that can be jotted down in any one constitution (right to privacy, perhaps for example.). The 9th Amendment does not limit government in is ability to - for example - regulate firearms, insofar as those powers stay within the swimlane of these that have been specifically enumerated.

Natural law advocates would argue that the 9th Amendment could cover fundamental rights to self defence, even more fundamental than the right to bear arms. So then, the the 2nd Amendment only enumerates a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. But again, since that right is enumerated in the 2nd, that's kind of redundant (i.e., the 9th does not apply to itself on this question).

The logic that has developed around 9th Amendment is ... complicated.

Anyone who believes our armed forces will not fire on us if ordered to do so is delusional. If there is a incerection [SIC] and you're part of it, this government will
have you shot by whomever it sends in

Click to expand...

Some might, certainly not all. It would also be highly dependent on the circumstances. A couple hundred Michigan militia dudes storming the WH over a perceived slight by whatever administration? Yeah.......they're toast. A couple million average citizens taking up arms to resist an unconstitutional edict? Whole 'nother ball game

I'm to old, the fights all gone. You youngsters can have it now, good luck.

I understand what you are saying. I do think it was put there for unforeseen rights & issues thy knew would come up. A catch all phrase. In that sense I feel it helps as in : just because they didn't write it down, I can have my AR15. It confers implied rights. I hope that made sense.

JC, I am 55& 100% disabled! I plan to fight to the end! YOU ARE NEVER OUT OF THE FIGHT! We need you to!



Sorry guys, gotta get some down time! HOPE YOUR STILL HERE TOMORROW! GOOD NITE!

you may be to old to fight, a lot of people are, but sir you are not to old to teach.

thirty-ought-six said:

Ok. I officially retract my statements. I guess while needing a license to own a gun in public seems like a good idea, as proved to me by other members states where you don't need a license don't have any more issues then one's that do.

Foot, meet mouth, lol.

Click to expand...

Respect.

"The genuine fudds come around when presented with logic."
Fight or flight response hits a lot of people hard. A lot of antis put great effort into their veil of ignorance, and poking holes in it is painful.

Conversely, gun control is one of the great dividing issues; the middle ground does not exist, and you will end up at either end of the issue if you pursue it. This is why ignorance/avoidance is key for antis; it shields them from the ultimate conclusions of their beliefs. A number of people I have spoken to about gun issues have 'rolled' toward our side, usually outraged by the trouble we put up with already, that the antis conveniently forget to mention at every call to action. I have also known an avid sportsman who came to realize they held a very hostile view of other gunowners, who became very hostile to me in the process. When you lay out the motivations behind gun control, and the person realizes they still support it, it can be rather disturbing to everyone involved. No one more so than the guy who realizes he wishes to see his peers (and by projection, himself) in chains, to serve at the pleasure of a collective. So he stops thinking, hardens his heart, and lashes out instinctively.

TCB

krupparms said:

I understand what you are saying. I do think it was put there for unforeseen rights & issues thy knew would come up. A catch all phrase. In that sense I feel it helps as in : just because they didn't write it down, I can have my AR15. It confers implied rights. I hope that made sense.

Click to expand...

Does the 9th Amendment confer an "implied right." No. It just says because the rights have not been enumerated elsewhere, the gov't cant pretend those rights don't exist.

Do you have a right to bear arms? Yes, as enumerated in the 2nd Amendment.

Do you have other rights surrounding self defense, freedom, etc. that may not be specifically enumerated? Yes.

Do you have a right to an AR-15 specifically? Well, the Constitution does not get that specific, LOL. And the Supreme Court has danced around this exact question.

The Court ducked the issue of whether the 2nd Amendment protects so-called "assault weapons" in the 2012 Wilson case. The Court found that it could not “conclusively say ... that assault weapons as defined in (a local assault weapon ban ordinance) categorically fall outside the scope of the rights protected" by the 2nd Amendment.” One of the reasons why it could not conclusively say, is that the local government did not address why assault weapons were outside the 2nd Amendment. Fair enough. So the Court remanded the 2A claim about "assault weapons" back to trial court for further proceedings.

By contrast, local government (Wash DC) did have a lot to say about handguns and the 2nd Amendment during the Heller case. And, accordingly, the Court had enough input from both parties to come down against a total ban on handguns by DC. Now ... the right to bear arms under Heller meant that government could not enact a total ban. But they still have a power to regulate. And, since this was a state/local issue, the 9th amendment does not apply.

Tellingly, the Congressional Research Service did a report for Congress in 2012 or 2013 (it's late, and I forget) on the feasibility of a Federal assault weapons bans. The report raised some serious reservations about the constitutionality of such a ban under the 2nd Amendment. I suspect (strongly) several Supreme Court justices (perhaps the majority) share that same concern - given Heller's definition of common usage in self defense - and Miller's definition of military usage in the common defense. The AR type rifle would appear to readily fit both definitions as acceptable under the Second Amendment.

Back to the 9th Amendment - I can see a different argument. Yes you have a right to self defense, etc ... that may not have been specifically enumerated. But, the 9th Amendment does not prevent the government from using an enumerated power to regulate (or tax, or whatever) firearms such that they may not fall under the scope of the Second Amendment.

That is, the 9th Amendment would not necessarily preclude the Federal government from passing and enforcing laws pertaining to some weapons (i.e. why the NFA can be argued to be consititutional), so long as the Federal gov't does not infringe with the right to bear arms commonly used for self defense or common defense. The 9th Amendment, as interpreted, is not useful in precluding state and local government from using its powers to pass and enforce laws that may infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. It's the 2nd Amendment itself that is ostensibly the defense against such state and local laws.

That's about as coherent as I can be this late at night...

Bobson, that tool subsequently told us (assault weapons owners) to go find the Newtown parents and tell them our guns are more important than their kids (or something obscenely similar to that). Didn't learn a damn thing. In fact, it was as though he became more unhinged upon examination

TCB

Respect

Click to expand...

Don't be so quick to give him a pass. That statement was a gambit to garner credence in his anti-gun crusade here.

Robert said:

Gun control is not about guns.

Click to expand...

BINGO!

The key word in "gun control" isn't "gun"...it's "control". Period.

krupparms said:

We are a house divided!

Click to expand...

I, like Warp, do no agree that we are a "house divided". However, whilst we're speaking of a house divided, I'm having serious troubles reconciling the OP's postings here with his comments in the following closed thread entitled "A House Divided".

In fact, his comments there are diametrically opposed to his comments here.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=771830


Now, while I'm all about discussing opposing opinions and such, I do find it very disturbing whenever I come across a "wolf in sheep's clothing". On the one hand, we have a person here who is posting some pretty positive pro-RKBA material, if somewhat erratic and disjointed in his OP. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the same person is avidly posting some very strong pro-gun control material in another thread.


In any debate/discussion, it's very important that both parties are clear about where they're coming from in their opinions and beliefs. Establishing these gives both parties a foundation upon which to build a meaningful dialog. However, when one party appears to have two diametrically opposing belief systems as clearly evidenced in two separate threads, it makes me wonder about the motives of the other individual and whether or not it's even worth my time to contribute.


Some clarification here would be gratefully appreciated.

Some clarification here would be gratefully appreciated.

Click to expand...

OP is an anti-gun cretin, demonstrably incapable of/unwilling to engage in critical thought or genuine introspect. He needn't admit this outright; his words have made it tacit.

He even uses, almost verbatim, the words of anti-gun politicians trying to swoon the "sportsmen" and "moderates":

1. I support the second amendment.

2. There needs to be common sense.

Click to expand...