Thumper
Member
Well, Mountain has made it plain that he(?)'s a Constitutional Scholar (10 whole years) who believes in prior restraint.
Mountain, the .50 BMG is for the Black Helicopters.
Official Constitution website is VERY anti-2A!
- Thread starter Drjones
- Start date
- Status
Well, Mountain has made it plain that he(?)'s a Constitutional Scholar (10 whole years) who believes in prior restraint.
Mountain, the .50 BMG is for the Black Helicopters.
Mark Tyson
Member
The .50 BMG is for distant prairie dogs.
Undetectable plastic guns are for Black helicopters - an imaginary gun for an imaginary threat.
Let's see if I can figure out where I left off ... I'm going to try to not rehash the same exact things over and over again, which means I may well reply to someone and not to someone else, by name, but hopefully I cover all the bases.
Regarding the Battle of Athens (the name does seem very melodramatic), it is an interesting footnote. I suspect that other means of resolving the issue could have been found, because I don't think it was necessary to resort to arms. But they did, and the outcome was correct. I don't think it proves anyone's point one way or the other, though. The thing I found most interesting is that they "borrowed" the keys to the local National Guard armory. I'm not sure if that word was used with irony or not.
7.62 wrote
You, and others, are talking about speech and guns, for example, as if they are apples and apples. I see them more as apples and pears - related, but different. You cannot stop someone from speaking because of what they might say. That would be an unreasonable prior restraint. But with a specific firearm that Congress wants to ban, what is the alternative? I guess for most of the crowd contributing to this topic, the alternative is no bans at all, as that is the message that I've gotten from several respodents. And that's fine for your opinion. But I don't think civilians have nay need for those .50 cals or any of the other "poster child" weapons (like the Uzi, the AK-47, the M-16, etc, that everyone brings up time and time again). So if it is prior restraint to ban these weapons entirely, then in this case I support prior restraint.
If you feel any ban is bad, then we have nothing to discuss because our views diverge too much. The view I'd like to hear about is from that person who thinks that we can ban a weapon but how to do that without the taint of prior restraint.
MoparMike asked
grampster wrote
jimpeel wrote
As for a national police service, I just don't see it as workable, regardless of what Schumer might have written. Law enforcement of the scope which local police forces now do is far too granular to be effectively done on a national scale. I think the divisions we have between local and federal law enforcement are about where they ought to be right now.
Mark Tyson wrote:
Balog wrote:
Of course, I see where you're going with all this, but I think you're getting into apples and oranges (as opposed the apples and apples or apples and pears). We cannot protect ourselves from ourselves in every way. Nor would we want to. But we can make it harder to kill a dozen people with a spray of bullets, can't we? And in any case, I again note that I am not advocating disarmament.
Wow - four pages now? Sigh....
Thumper said:
Regarding the Battle of Athens (the name does seem very melodramatic), it is an interesting footnote. I suspect that other means of resolving the issue could have been found, because I don't think it was necessary to resort to arms. But they did, and the outcome was correct. I don't think it proves anyone's point one way or the other, though. The thing I found most interesting is that they "borrowed" the keys to the local National Guard armory. I'm not sure if that word was used with irony or not.
7.62 wrote
I think I addressed this a bit, but let me take another stab at it - and I hope this won't use up my entire break.
You, and others, are talking about speech and guns, for example, as if they are apples and apples. I see them more as apples and pears - related, but different. You cannot stop someone from speaking because of what they might say. That would be an unreasonable prior restraint. But with a specific firearm that Congress wants to ban, what is the alternative? I guess for most of the crowd contributing to this topic, the alternative is no bans at all, as that is the message that I've gotten from several respodents. And that's fine for your opinion. But I don't think civilians have nay need for those .50 cals or any of the other "poster child" weapons (like the Uzi, the AK-47, the M-16, etc, that everyone brings up time and time again). So if it is prior restraint to ban these weapons entirely, then in this case I support prior restraint.
If you feel any ban is bad, then we have nothing to discuss because our views diverge too much. The view I'd like to hear about is from that person who thinks that we can ban a weapon but how to do that without the taint of prior restraint.
MoparMike asked
The honest answer is that I know that the government can be corrupt, because it is run by people who can be corrupted - I'm not naive. But I have faith in the system as a whole - that in the long run, it works. And I have that faith because I've seen our history over the past 200-some-odd years, and though the bumps in the road are certainly, undeniably there, we are where we are now, which is a pretty damn good place. The people in the government are like you and I - they are good Americans, patriots, lovers of our freedoms. I don't see them, en masse, turning all of that on its head. And please, please, please, remember that I am not talking about disarmament. I am only talking about some regulation. I keep being painted (either directly or by association) as wanting to take away everyone's weapons. This is not what I advocate by any means.
grampster wrote
Please note that I am not talking about using the Congress or the courts to change the Constitution. I am talking about a Constitutional Amendment, which would be proposed and ratified within the parameters that you recognize. Hence, there would be lots and lots of debate on my proposal, and in the end, it would look somewhat different from the way it is now. Again, my proposal is just an impetus for debate, an idea.
I don't think you're advocating a return to the "good old days" of the 19th century - society evolves. Our Constitution has, through our own faith and the foresight of the Framers, evolved with it. At the same time, it would be entirely recognizable today to one of the Framers. No other country in the world can say the same. That's because it is not law (per se), it is a framework for the law. There have been skips and bumps, but it endures because it needed so little modification from its original. Yet we have not become stagnant. That's ver significant.
Actually, much of the original Constitution insulates the government from the common man - some of that is retained today. The Framers knew the common man had to be involved, but he was not to be fully trusted. I think if nothing else, this proves that they did not put enough faith in the common American (changed by me because "he" is not longer just a "he").
jimpeel wrote
That was never, ever the intent of my proposal, and if that could be allowed, it would be a fatal flaw in my proposal. My feeling is that "reasonable" laws could never remove every firearm from every citizen. However, I have no way of knowing this for sure, as the word would seem to allow too much wiggle room. I have made some modifications on my site because of these concerns.
As for a national police service, I just don't see it as workable, regardless of what Schumer might have written. Law enforcement of the scope which local police forces now do is far too granular to be effectively done on a national scale. I think the divisions we have between local and federal law enforcement are about where they ought to be right now.
Mark Tyson wrote:
Just to be clear, so do I. I fear that point may be lost in all of the rhetoric. No where to I advocate the elimination of the right to bear arms. And I only support the repeal of the 2nd Amendment when its replacement would be less ambiguous.
Of course. As can a butter knife (a favorite counter to any gun control idea is to say "well, you better ban butter knives, too, because they can kill, too!" Please.). But just as you don't use a machete to spread butter on your toast, I don't see any reason to have a fully automatic weapon to hunt with or to protect your home with. Misused, a handgun or rifle can kill - misused, other types of weapons can kill more. I don't think we need to go back to muzzle-loaded flintlocks, but I don't think you need the Special Force's weapon of choice either.
Balog wrote:
Maybe not 75 - but no one has a need for a street car that can hit 100, do they?
Does it truly have no other use? I'm no botanist... but it would not bother me one bit to see all tobacco products banned. Might save us all a heap of money.
Of course, I see where you're going with all this, but I think you're getting into apples and oranges (as opposed the apples and apples or apples and pears). We cannot protect ourselves from ourselves in every way. Nor would we want to. But we can make it harder to kill a dozen people with a spray of bullets, can't we? And in any case, I again note that I am not advocating disarmament.
Sorry, but this kind of statement, which I've heard and seen many a time, makes me chuckle. The God that I was raised to know probably has a hissy fit any time someone invokes His name in the same sentence as guns. If He wanted us all to have guns, we'd get one instead of a big toe.
Wow - four pages now? Sigh....
Thumper said:
Yes, he. And I think I've explained my position on the prior restraint issue far enough. Did I call my self a Constitutional Scholar? Certainly a student of the Constitution...
Thumper
Member
The bottom line is this, and I think you agree: You don't believe that the U.S. Government is capable of Tyranny (capitol T).
That's where we differ...you believe, evidently, that it was possible in the time of the founders, but not anymore.
You do admit, I hope, especially in light of the words of Madison et al, that your interpretation is in opposition to the original intent of the writers, correct?
That's where we differ...you believe, evidently, that it was possible in the time of the founders, but not anymore.
You do admit, I hope, especially in light of the words of Madison et al, that your interpretation is in opposition to the original intent of the writers, correct?
Balog
Member
Mountain wrote:
Really? I'd be interested in knowing what religion you were "raised to know" since the Jesus I read about in the Bible told his disciples to arm themselves (illegally, I might add) even if they had to sell the cloaks off their backs to do so. I'd refer you to Duncan Long's excellent article on the subject http://duncanlong.com/science-fiction-fantasy-short-stories/ammo.html
Really? I'd be interested in knowing what religion you were "raised to know" since the Jesus I read about in the Bible told his disciples to arm themselves (illegally, I might add) even if they had to sell the cloaks off their backs to do so. I'd refer you to Duncan Long's excellent article on the subject http://duncanlong.com/science-fiction-fantasy-short-stories/ammo.html
Mark Tyson
Member
Mountain:
If you think it's OK to ban 50 calibers then you may as well ban a thousand other perfectly legal weapons as well, because nobody "needs" them and they can do terrible things in the wrong hands. Nobody needs to hunt or shoot for sport for that matter.
The only reason gun control advocates want to take away guns(okay, only some guns) is because guns aren't an important right to them. Well they're important to me, darn it, just as important as your right to publish your thoughts and your right to attend the church of your choice.
Let's try one more time with the speech-guns analogy. Say you don't ban speech, but you ban books. Books are tangible. The ideas in books have been misused. Maybe you start by only banning books with particularly dangerous ideas - such as Mein Kamph, or the Communist Manifesto. Dangerous ideas have caused all kinds of trouble. Or maybe religious works should be included in the list. After all, nobody needs to go to Church or Mosque or Synagogue. Many people are atheists these days. Look at all the havoc religious inspired violence has caused through the centuries. Eventually people will not remember religion and will not miss it, the same way gun control advocates want to destroy our vilified "gun culture".
Another thing: if you want to save lives, guns aren't the place to start. You know how many people die of heart disease in this country? Over 700,000 according to the CDC. Heart disease is the leading cause of death, so why not outlaw fast food, junk food, etc. why don't we have government-mandated cardiovascular exercise? Well, why not? It would save lives.
The answer is: because we wouldn't be free. And we won't be truly free if you have your way with our gun rights either.
If you think it's OK to ban 50 calibers then you may as well ban a thousand other perfectly legal weapons as well, because nobody "needs" them and they can do terrible things in the wrong hands. Nobody needs to hunt or shoot for sport for that matter.
The only reason gun control advocates want to take away guns(okay, only some guns) is because guns aren't an important right to them. Well they're important to me, darn it, just as important as your right to publish your thoughts and your right to attend the church of your choice.
Let's try one more time with the speech-guns analogy. Say you don't ban speech, but you ban books. Books are tangible. The ideas in books have been misused. Maybe you start by only banning books with particularly dangerous ideas - such as Mein Kamph, or the Communist Manifesto. Dangerous ideas have caused all kinds of trouble. Or maybe religious works should be included in the list. After all, nobody needs to go to Church or Mosque or Synagogue. Many people are atheists these days. Look at all the havoc religious inspired violence has caused through the centuries. Eventually people will not remember religion and will not miss it, the same way gun control advocates want to destroy our vilified "gun culture".
Another thing: if you want to save lives, guns aren't the place to start. You know how many people die of heart disease in this country? Over 700,000 according to the CDC. Heart disease is the leading cause of death, so why not outlaw fast food, junk food, etc. why don't we have government-mandated cardiovascular exercise? Well, why not? It would save lives.
The answer is: because we wouldn't be free. And we won't be truly free if you have your way with our gun rights either.
Thumper
Member
Hahahah...the murk is getting clearer: The God I was raised to know doesn't have "hissy fits."
"David, put that sling down...you don't need it."
Mark Tyson
Member
Oh one more thing. I'm not religious. I can live without television, fast food, sports cars, motorcycles or any number of other potentially dangerous things. But there's no way I'm going to let the government push people around and forbid any of these things to other people, no matter what their intentions. I expect every American who cares about freedom to feel the same way about my gun rights.
NIGHTWATCH
Member
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms in preparation to thwart the historically established tyrannical nature of government, and for the use of personal self-defense and sporting purposes shall not be infringed"...doesnt sound bad.
Mountain:
Prior restraint is prior restraint. You either believe in it or you don't. To me, it doesn't seem logical nor intellectually honest to say, "well, I believe in it here, but not there."
You can't pick and choose.
Further, why is it "unreasonable prior restraint" to prevent people from speaking based on what they might say, but perfectly reasonable to you to ban certain items based on what they might do? Again, prior restraint is prior restraint, and if you believe in it, you believe in it. To do otherwise seems to me to be indicative of an agenda at worst and weak reasoning at best.
That's great that you have faith in the system. Show me a person who honestly expected their government to turn on them.
I'm sure the jews in the 1920's had faith in their government, and had you asked them if they had any reason to fear it, they probably would have looked at you the same way you look at us when we say owning fully-automatic .50s is our God-given right.
I'm sure the vast majority of the 120 million or so people murdered by their (mostly communist) governments in the 20th century didn't expect it either.
That's great that you have such faith and trust in our government, but it is misplaced. To believe otherwise is to be ignorant of history, plain and simple.
I'm not saying I believe that our govt WILL turn on us, but I most definitely do not place it outside the realm of possibility.
Heck, see what Gen. Franks thinks will happen after another terrorist attack: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
Mountain, it seems that you are perfectly fine with the government and all its agencies owning whatever they want. I'll remind you that soldiers and policemen are just that; men. Human beings. Just like you and me, believe it or not.
What exactly makes an AR-15 "good" and acceptable to you in the hands of a cop or soldier, but not in my hands? Do you *really* think I'm going to run out and mow down a dozen people if I were allowed to own such weapons? Obviously you must, since you don't think that people like myself and other "common" citizens should own such weapons.
Yet you trust the government and its agents NOT to run out and mow everyone down.
Why?
What is the difference between a soldier with an AR-15 and a law-abiding American citizen with an AR-15?
You cannot honestly think that all the gun control laws in the world will prevent criminals from obtaining whatever firearms they please. This is painfully evident in the North Hollywood shooting of 1992(?). The automatic AK-47s used by the bad guys were not legal in the state of California (perhaps illegal in the US period) were not registered, were not brought here legally, and I can assure you, those criminals did not pass any background checks to get those guns.
Yet they still got them.
And why do you trust people with shotguns and hunting (sniper) rifles, but not with fully-automatic weapons? I already own five firearms and haven't killed anyone. Unless you count the brave trees that gave their lives to make the paper for my targets.
Do you really think I'm going to suddenly go on a killing spree the moment I get my unstable little paws on an AR or AK?
Again with your belief that everyone who owns an "assault weapon" is going to use it for evil means. Mountain, why are you incapable of seeing that weapons, even "assault weapons" can and have been used for good by civilians?
Do you know, mountain, that since 1934 there have been TWO crimes committed by American citizens with legally owned fully-automatic weapons?
Not so fast...guess who BOTH of those people were? They were both police officers.
Mountain, currently, there are approximately 240,000 fully automatic weapons registered with the ATF, half, or 120,000 of which are owned by civilians, the rest by the government.
So with a crime rate of absolutely ZERO per 120,000 (I'm not including the two cops as "civilians") you simply cannot find anything that has a better track record than automatic weapons, not even butter knives. If saving lives is truly your real concern, you honestly should start a movement to ban butter knives.
Really? http://www.ktc.com/personal/sirdavid/isa-je20.htm
Good thread, everyone!
Prior restraint is prior restraint. You either believe in it or you don't. To me, it doesn't seem logical nor intellectually honest to say, "well, I believe in it here, but not there."
You can't pick and choose.
Further, why is it "unreasonable prior restraint" to prevent people from speaking based on what they might say, but perfectly reasonable to you to ban certain items based on what they might do? Again, prior restraint is prior restraint, and if you believe in it, you believe in it. To do otherwise seems to me to be indicative of an agenda at worst and weak reasoning at best.
That's great that you have faith in the system. Show me a person who honestly expected their government to turn on them.
I'm sure the jews in the 1920's had faith in their government, and had you asked them if they had any reason to fear it, they probably would have looked at you the same way you look at us when we say owning fully-automatic .50s is our God-given right.
I'm sure the vast majority of the 120 million or so people murdered by their (mostly communist) governments in the 20th century didn't expect it either.
That's great that you have such faith and trust in our government, but it is misplaced. To believe otherwise is to be ignorant of history, plain and simple.
I'm not saying I believe that our govt WILL turn on us, but I most definitely do not place it outside the realm of possibility.
Heck, see what Gen. Franks thinks will happen after another terrorist attack: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
Mountain, it seems that you are perfectly fine with the government and all its agencies owning whatever they want. I'll remind you that soldiers and policemen are just that; men. Human beings. Just like you and me, believe it or not.
What exactly makes an AR-15 "good" and acceptable to you in the hands of a cop or soldier, but not in my hands? Do you *really* think I'm going to run out and mow down a dozen people if I were allowed to own such weapons? Obviously you must, since you don't think that people like myself and other "common" citizens should own such weapons.
Yet you trust the government and its agents NOT to run out and mow everyone down.
Why?
What is the difference between a soldier with an AR-15 and a law-abiding American citizen with an AR-15?
You cannot honestly think that all the gun control laws in the world will prevent criminals from obtaining whatever firearms they please. This is painfully evident in the North Hollywood shooting of 1992(?). The automatic AK-47s used by the bad guys were not legal in the state of California (perhaps illegal in the US period) were not registered, were not brought here legally, and I can assure you, those criminals did not pass any background checks to get those guns.
Yet they still got them.
And why do you trust people with shotguns and hunting (sniper) rifles, but not with fully-automatic weapons? I already own five firearms and haven't killed anyone. Unless you count the brave trees that gave their lives to make the paper for my targets.
Do you really think I'm going to suddenly go on a killing spree the moment I get my unstable little paws on an AR or AK?
Again with your belief that everyone who owns an "assault weapon" is going to use it for evil means. Mountain, why are you incapable of seeing that weapons, even "assault weapons" can and have been used for good by civilians?
Do you know, mountain, that since 1934 there have been TWO crimes committed by American citizens with legally owned fully-automatic weapons?
Not so fast...guess who BOTH of those people were? They were both police officers.
Mountain, currently, there are approximately 240,000 fully automatic weapons registered with the ATF, half, or 120,000 of which are owned by civilians, the rest by the government.
So with a crime rate of absolutely ZERO per 120,000 (I'm not including the two cops as "civilians") you simply cannot find anything that has a better track record than automatic weapons, not even butter knives. If saving lives is truly your real concern, you honestly should start a movement to ban butter knives.
Really? http://www.ktc.com/personal/sirdavid/isa-je20.htm
Good thread, everyone!
Moparmike
Member
I dont mean for this to come accross as ad hominem Mountain...
But you have one common Liberal theme in your responses to our inquiries, full of logical fallicies. You say that (and I paraphrase) "Because I dont see a need to own {insert inanimate object and unnecessary characteristics here}, then it should be banned." I really dont see how that can be argued logically. If everyone had to prove a need for something, then no one would have anything beyond shelter, food, and clothing.
I see your basic premise. Now watch what I do with it: (cracks knuckles)
We dont all need an unregulated internet, because it spreads bad ideas, and can make people angry at each other. It enables pedophiles and terrorists to have easier access to materials they shouldnt have.
Ban unregulated internet, and allow it only to be used at designated government "Internet Interface Offices." Censor bad stuff. Its for the children.
We dont need personal cars. People get killed with them. People drive without supervision of the government. Ban all personal cars and institute a government taxi system, which is completely computerized.
We dont need un-healthy food. Ban any private food produciton. All food must be dispensed by the government to provide the USDA recommended nutritional value.
We dont need lethargy, obesity, and poor health. In conjunction with government regulation of food, exercise will be mandatory. Its for the health of the nation, because every one needs to be healthy wether they want to pursue health or not.
We dont need guns. Self-protection and fun (which detracts from being productive, which is necessary to the country) are irrelevant. Laws will take care of criminals, and the benevolent government overlords will see to the public welfare. Any object that can be used for self-defense can be used to injure as well, and therefore arent needed.
We dont need stylish clothing. It detracts from many daily activities, like the mini-skirt the boss's secratary is wearing distracts a guy from his job. The US labor force doesnt need destractions that cause inefficiency. All garments and textile goods will be handed out by the government. It will be pre-made according to your needs.
Do you see where this is going? Just because you or anyone else doesnt think I need something, doesnt mean that you have the right to deny me something. If I want a Porsche, and can afford it, then I should be allowed to have it. Just because I could do something stupid or fatal (to myself or others), doesnt mean that I should be denyed it. Do you know how many common household objects can be used to cause the death of a human being? There are literally hundreds of things in your house that can kill you right now, if used improperly. An untold number of household objects can injure you. Do you need all of those lethal objects in one place at one time? Of course not. You're not using those bottles of household cleaners at this moment, so you dont need them now. But you dont see me trying to deny you your Ammonia and Bleach just because you could ignorantly mix the two while trying to get that floor ''extra clean'', and inadvertantly kill yourself with homemade Mustard Gas.
Its a little thing called trust. The government must trust the citizen to see to his own well-being in daily life. If he/she violates that trust, then steps must be taken. But if I havent killed anything besides some innocent paper and old refrigerators with my Ma Deuce, then leave me alone to my fun. If I havent infringed anyone's freedom's by driving my Mercedes at 110 mph on an abandoned stretch of I-540, then let me have my fun. If I want to have some extra pep in my car to use in a responsible yet fun manner, then leave me alone. Learn to trust. Like I said, if someone breaks that trust, then punish him/her. Make stern examples of those that abuse freedoms. Teach through appropriate enforcement of laws that with freedom comes responsibility.
A government that fears its citizens is "Liberty." A government that has citizens who fear it is called "Tyrrany."
But you have one common Liberal theme in your responses to our inquiries, full of logical fallicies. You say that (and I paraphrase) "Because I dont see a need to own {insert inanimate object and unnecessary characteristics here}, then it should be banned." I really dont see how that can be argued logically. If everyone had to prove a need for something, then no one would have anything beyond shelter, food, and clothing.
I see your basic premise. Now watch what I do with it: (cracks knuckles)
We dont all need an unregulated internet, because it spreads bad ideas, and can make people angry at each other. It enables pedophiles and terrorists to have easier access to materials they shouldnt have.
Ban unregulated internet, and allow it only to be used at designated government "Internet Interface Offices." Censor bad stuff. Its for the children.
We dont need personal cars. People get killed with them. People drive without supervision of the government. Ban all personal cars and institute a government taxi system, which is completely computerized.
We dont need un-healthy food. Ban any private food produciton. All food must be dispensed by the government to provide the USDA recommended nutritional value.
We dont need lethargy, obesity, and poor health. In conjunction with government regulation of food, exercise will be mandatory. Its for the health of the nation, because every one needs to be healthy wether they want to pursue health or not.
We dont need guns. Self-protection and fun (which detracts from being productive, which is necessary to the country) are irrelevant. Laws will take care of criminals, and the benevolent government overlords will see to the public welfare. Any object that can be used for self-defense can be used to injure as well, and therefore arent needed.
We dont need stylish clothing. It detracts from many daily activities, like the mini-skirt the boss's secratary is wearing distracts a guy from his job. The US labor force doesnt need destractions that cause inefficiency. All garments and textile goods will be handed out by the government. It will be pre-made according to your needs.
Do you see where this is going? Just because you or anyone else doesnt think I need something, doesnt mean that you have the right to deny me something. If I want a Porsche, and can afford it, then I should be allowed to have it. Just because I could do something stupid or fatal (to myself or others), doesnt mean that I should be denyed it. Do you know how many common household objects can be used to cause the death of a human being? There are literally hundreds of things in your house that can kill you right now, if used improperly. An untold number of household objects can injure you. Do you need all of those lethal objects in one place at one time? Of course not. You're not using those bottles of household cleaners at this moment, so you dont need them now. But you dont see me trying to deny you your Ammonia and Bleach just because you could ignorantly mix the two while trying to get that floor ''extra clean'', and inadvertantly kill yourself with homemade Mustard Gas.
Its a little thing called trust. The government must trust the citizen to see to his own well-being in daily life. If he/she violates that trust, then steps must be taken. But if I havent killed anything besides some innocent paper and old refrigerators with my Ma Deuce, then leave me alone to my fun. If I havent infringed anyone's freedom's by driving my Mercedes at 110 mph on an abandoned stretch of I-540, then let me have my fun. If I want to have some extra pep in my car to use in a responsible yet fun manner, then leave me alone. Learn to trust. Like I said, if someone breaks that trust, then punish him/her. Make stern examples of those that abuse freedoms. Teach through appropriate enforcement of laws that with freedom comes responsibility.
A government that fears its citizens is "Liberty." A government that has citizens who fear it is called "Tyrrany."
Mark Tyson
Member
Hawk
Member
In the time I've been a member of THR, I've come to understand the term "prior restraint" as I've not done previously. My view of the BOR has also drifted somewhat to the "absolutist" interpretation.
Nevertheless, as an old debate team captain, I gotta love the above analogy - it's a classic - better than anything Brady or the VPC could come up with (maybe 'cuz it came from somebody who wasn't a "foaming at the mouth anti"). Greetings to mountain from a former resident of Plattsburgh NY - cold, hunh?
voilsb
Member
But you see, every one of those firearms is used in some sort of a sport. So why should they be banned? They fit the "sporting purpose" part of your proposed amendment. Unless you mean, like the proposed AWB renewal, that "just because a firearm is used in a sporting event does not qualify it for sporting purposes."
Balog
Member
One thing I don't understand about yer argument Mountain.
Self defense=legitimate "need" for firearms.
Self defense=killing (or stopping. Anytime you shoot someone you bear the onus of possibly killing them) people who would harm you.
Full-auto=better at killing people than semi-auto. (I'd tend to disagree w/ this, but it's yer argument.)
Therefore, by your own train of reasoning, since killing people can be a legitimate need, and FA is better at it..... FA is legitimately needed.
What's that? You don't think anyone would need to stop lots and lots of people all at once? Tell that to the Korean storeowners during the Rodney King riots. Tell that to every black ever lynched by a mob. Check out http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45802
Self defense=legitimate "need" for firearms.
Self defense=killing (or stopping. Anytime you shoot someone you bear the onus of possibly killing them) people who would harm you.
Full-auto=better at killing people than semi-auto. (I'd tend to disagree w/ this, but it's yer argument.)
Therefore, by your own train of reasoning, since killing people can be a legitimate need, and FA is better at it..... FA is legitimately needed.
What's that? You don't think anyone would need to stop lots and lots of people all at once? Tell that to the Korean storeowners during the Rodney King riots. Tell that to every black ever lynched by a mob. Check out http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45802
Drjones wrote:
To think you should be free to own any weapon should mean that you take an extreme libertarian position on every issue, if you're going to remain consistent, if that's required. I find it perfectly reasonable to support total freedom of speech but to also support government regulation of other issues, including gun ownership. But of course, how I see it is my decision - how you see it is yours.
Finally, it was wrong of me to say that God has a hissy fit. Of course, I have no idea if He does or not -- of course, neither does anyone else know if He does, or if he is a member of the NRA. So maybe we should all just leave Him out of this.
Moparmike said:
Drjones wrote:
Hawk wrote:
Why can't you pick and choose? I think it is intellectually dishonest to say that you cannot vary your opinion based on the topic upon which the opinion is based. In my mind, and please be sure that you understand I am only talking about my own opinion and not trying to impose it on anyone else, prior restraint of speech and prior restraint of gun ownership are two different things. I think it is reasonable that a license be required to drive a car. Is it intellectually dishonest of me to think that it is unreasonable to require a license for a bicycle? They are both moving vehicles that use public throughways. Yet I think one should require a license and the other not. I don't see a conflict there. Nor do I with speech and guns. The speech versus guns analogy breaks down in one other way - to impose prior restraint on speech is to eliminate all speech. To forbid ownership of gun A is not necessarily to forbid ownership of gun B.
To think you should be free to own any weapon should mean that you take an extreme libertarian position on every issue, if you're going to remain consistent, if that's required. I find it perfectly reasonable to support total freedom of speech but to also support government regulation of other issues, including gun ownership. But of course, how I see it is my decision - how you see it is yours.
Maybe not whatever they want - but they have a different role to play. When I see a criminal brandishing a gun, I do not want to confront that person, even if I have my own. The police are there to do that. They have the training, the equipment, and the manpower to do what is necessary. So if they need automatic weapons, so be it. Ditto a foreign invader - would I resist one? Of course, but it is the military's job, for which they are trained, equipped, and staffed to do. If they need M16s, .50 cals, and tanks, then so be it. There is no need for me to have one. I understand that you're going to bring up a whole slew of what-ifs, both purely hypothetical and based on history, but these just do not convince me. Sorry, you're not going to ... just as I know I'm not going to convince you. My only intent is to air my side of the debate, not to sway you.
Finally, it was wrong of me to say that God has a hissy fit. Of course, I have no idea if He does or not -- of course, neither does anyone else know if He does, or if he is a member of the NRA. So maybe we should all just leave Him out of this.
Moparmike said:
I only note that my arguments have never said that you should not be able to own guns for fun or self-protection. Only that society should be able to look at certain weapson, certain types of weapons, or certain classes of weapons and decide, reasonably, that individual persons have no need to own them. I know this argument hold no water for you and all the others in this topic (aside from myself). I see your side, I really do - I just plain and simple disagree with it.
Drjones wrote:
I plead the 5th.
Hawk wrote:
whew - thanks for the breather.
Not so bad just yet, but the wind today definitely had winter in it.
DualBerettas
Member
tired of can't yelll fire in theatre bs!! then saying reasonable restrictions ON rkba are acceptable. BS!! You can say any word you want...when you use it in a wrong way to make panic that is wrong...same with guns...own whatever you want but don't misuse it..
why is that so difficult to understand?/
DB
why is that so difficult to understand?/
DB
Balog
Member
Calm down Dual. This isn't a troll who came here to start a fight. We brought the fight to him, and so far he's fought fairly. We're nice to our guests here.
Mark Tyson
Member
There you go with need again, Mountain.
Lots of things are dangerous - things we don't need. Lots of things kill lots more people than guns, things I and others have already mentioned.
I can think of a hundred things we don't need and a hundred good reasons to outlaw them. You can too - you just happened to pick guns.
If you decide to pick and choose among our rights, some day someone may single out rights you hold dear to sacrifice.
Lots of things are dangerous - things we don't need. Lots of things kill lots more people than guns, things I and others have already mentioned.
I can think of a hundred things we don't need and a hundred good reasons to outlaw them. You can too - you just happened to pick guns.
If you decide to pick and choose among our rights, some day someone may single out rights you hold dear to sacrifice.
jimpeel
Member
Mountain
Posse Comitatus is the law that disallows the military from being used in police actions within the United States.
This section of the law federalizes cities, counties, whole states or territories by order of the President for up to 18 months. This law places those areas under federal police control. It also allows the Attorney General (Janet Reno at that point in tme) to create law through regulation.
Here is the pertinent section, with emphasis added, from the
CONFERENCE REPORT ON HR3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993
(As passed by the House on August 21, 1994 and subsequently approved
by the Senate on August 25, 1994)
Glad to see that you are not immoveable.
I don't know if you are familiar with the Posse Comitatus law; but this is the law that Schumer sought to weaken.
Posse Comitatus is the law that disallows the military from being used in police actions within the United States.
While everyone was busy watching the 1994 Crime bill's provisions against "assault weapons" and magazine sizes, they missed this little jewel which was tucked into the bill. This is now the law of the land.
This section of the law federalizes cities, counties, whole states or territories by order of the President for up to 18 months. This law places those areas under federal police control. It also allows the Attorney General (Janet Reno at that point in tme) to create law through regulation.
Here is the pertinent section, with emphasis added, from the
CONFERENCE REPORT ON HR3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993
(As passed by the House on August 21, 1994 and subsequently approved
by the Senate on August 25, 1994)
jimpeel
Member
Mountain
By the by. There is a question that you must answer for yourself; and only you can answer it.
If it is, as evidenced by the writings of the Founders, that the right to arms is as a last bastion against government tyranny; why is it that same government is so anxious to remove firearms capable of overthrowing the government from the hands of the general populace?
Answer that question and you will have the answer to everything you need to know about the intent of the Second Amendment.
A great read is HERE entitled "WHAT GOOD CAN A HANDGUN DO AGAINST AN ARMY.....?"
This is the pistol that the story is talking about.
Enjoy.
By the by. There is a question that you must answer for yourself; and only you can answer it.
If it is, as evidenced by the writings of the Founders, that the right to arms is as a last bastion against government tyranny; why is it that same government is so anxious to remove firearms capable of overthrowing the government from the hands of the general populace?
Answer that question and you will have the answer to everything you need to know about the intent of the Second Amendment.
A great read is HERE entitled "WHAT GOOD CAN A HANDGUN DO AGAINST AN ARMY.....?"
This is the pistol that the story is talking about.
Enjoy.
- Status