Jump starting the economy...

[Hosakawa Tito]

...or Annie get yer gun (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gHIVt7MERGIbR6SEMaTMPoeCiuiwD94AGFIO0) . Yes sir, who says The Masters of the Universe residing on WallStreet are the only ones who know how to manipulate the market? The "Obama Sale" is just in time for Christmas.~:wacko:
I gots mine.https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/chimpwithgun2ygresized01.jpg

[CountArach]

Morons.

Obama believes it is a state-rights issue.

[Strike For The South]

Morons.

Obama believes it is a state-rights issue.

The constitution says the right to bear arms. Constitution>State Governments

I find you position to be shallow and pedantic.

[CountArach]

The constitution says the right to bear arms. Constitution>State Governments

I find you position to be shallow and pedantic.
If the Constitution says it then there is no chance guns will be banned. The Supreme Court knocks it down.

I find your position pointless.

[Marshal Murat]

I don't have the data in front of me, but when any Democrat who doesn't come out as pro-gun looks like they'll win, there is an increase in gun sales, as people buy guns before they become outlawed like religion and happiness.

I might just be shooting from the hip here....
:shame:

[Strike For The South]

If the Constitution says it then there is no chance guns will be banned. The Supreme Court knocks it down.

I find your position pointless.

SO why bother in the first place. Its an explicitly stated right in the constitution. Any state that would do that is wasting paper that they write there bills on. And that my friend is very shallow and pedantic

[CountArach]

SO why bother in the first place. Its an explicitly stated right in the constitution. Any state that would do that is wasting paper that they write there bills on. And that my friend is very shallow and pedantic
What are you talking about? Did you read something into my first post that wasn't there?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Morons.

Obama believes it is a state-rights issue.

I believe that'd be what we call lying:

Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

And he wants to outlaw state concealed carry laws. :wall:

I need to get a (real, not .22) rifle. Going to get one from a dealer who hasn't jacked their prices astronomically.

And another pistol, probably a revolver.

I'm not truly pessimistic about AWB II passing, considering passing the AWB cost the dems Congress in 1994. And we just had that SCOTUS ruling. :beam:

CR

[seireikhaan]

I believe that'd be what we call lying:


And he wants to outlaw state concealed carry laws. :wall:

I need to get a (real, not .22) rifle. Going to get one from a dealer who hasn't jacked their prices astronomically.

And another pistol, probably a revolver.

I'm not truly pessimistic about AWB II passing, considering passing the AWB cost the dems Congress in 1994. And we just had that SCOTUS ruling. :beam:

CR
CR- I really am just curious on this matter- do you believe that any restriction on "arms" is unconstitutional?

[Strike For The South]

CR- I really am just curious on this matter- do you believe that any restriction on "arms" is unconstitutional?

Any type of gun yes.

[Crazed Rabbit]

CR- I really am just curious on this matter- do you believe that any restriction on "arms" is unconstitutional?

No. I believe laws against violent criminals having guns is constitutional. Some other laws I can live with as well. But banning most semi-automatic weapons based on hoplophobia and fear-mongering by the government to get people to give up an essential right? That I am always against.

CR

[CountArach]

No. I believe laws against violent criminals having guns is constitutional.
Why? I'm just interested in how you justify it.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The same way I justify punishing criminals through incarceration or taking their voting rights while in prison; they have abused their rights and so those rights are forfeited.

CR

[seireikhaan]

First- I quite agree on the issue of convicted felons.

Second- The amendment refers only to "arms". "Arms", in the modern tense of the word, frankly includes a lot of things I don't think a lot of people should own. For example, Rocket Propelled Grenades, Rocket Launchers, Fortified Machine Guns, Flamethrowers, or even a nuclear weapon? How can we, if we interpret the amendment as strictly as you wish, preclude commoners from such weapons, in a legal sense? "Arms" is a broad definition, and, for the sake of sanity, I fail to see how we cannot pare it down in some degree.

[CountArach]

The same way I justify punishing criminals through incarceration or taking their voting rights while in prison; they have abused their rights and so those rights are forfeited.

CR
But which part of the Constitution gives the Government the right to say that? Isn't it infringing upon their right to bear arms?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I posted the exact same story a week ago, but because my name doesn't begin with a big, shiny "H" nobody paid any attention. Maybe I should have started a thread about it, then I would be more popular.

[ICantSpellDawg]

But which part of the Constitution gives the Government the right to say that?

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

By wording it is arguable.

1)Does it say "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states" separated with a ";" from the next part which allows the deprivation of life, liberty or property WITH due process?

Or

2)Is it reasonable to assume that if States can deprive citizens of life, liberty and property that due process allows for the deprivation of other privileges and immunities, therby linking all aspects of the first amendment do due process?

I side with 2 - I believe that the fourteenth amendment allows states to remove those privileges using due process.

You could, however, argue that the semicolons separate the deprivation of "life, liberty and property" from the other privileges held by citizens (such as voting rights).

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Second amendment, when describing the right to bear arms in a connected fashion uses comma's instead of semi-colons in order to more closely link the whole description.

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 you accept this it is understandable that you would reject the personal right to carry arms and the state's ability to remove citizens voting rights.

I (and the supreme court, coincidentally) maintain that the fourteenth amendment allows for States to remove the voting rights of felons and that the second amendment allows the personal right to bear arms.

[drone]

But which part of the Constitution gives the Government the right to say that? Isn't it infringing upon their right to bear arms?

It's for their own protection. If prisoners had guns, the guards would just shoot them outright. ~D


I'm thinking anti-gun legislation will not be forthcoming at the moment. If the Dems want to lose key states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan (and any southern states) they can go ahead and try. The NRA has pretty much won that battle, and has supporters on both sides. They will need to wait until the current economic crisis gets the crime rate up before they can even attempt it, and even then it would be foolish outside of population centers.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Second- The amendment refers only to "arms". "Arms", in the modern tense of the word, frankly includes a lot of things I don't think a lot of people should own. For example, Rocket Propelled Grenades, Rocket Launchers, Fortified Machine Guns, Flamethrowers, or even a nuclear weapon? How can we, if we interpret the amendment as strictly as you wish, preclude commoners from such weapons, in a legal sense? "Arms" is a broad definition, and, for the sake of sanity, I fail to see how we cannot pare it down in some degree.
Who's both wealthy enough and dumb enough to purchase and use any of those arms?

[CountArach]

That was interesting, thanks TuffStuff :bow:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I posted the exact same story a week ago, but because my name doesn't begin with a big, shiny "H" nobody paid any attention. Maybe I should have started a thread about it, then I would be more popular.
We read your stuff, Tuff.

Did you post this story perhaps in one of the election threads or their offshoots? They were moving at eight pages a day last week, over several threads. I had to skip many links and side discussions, just to keep up. I missed your link, probably didn't open it or quickly skimmed over it. Others may have read it but did not want to devolve the thread into a gun debate. People couldn't possibly extensively debate every abortion, gun or tax issue that was raised.

And we all love you! ~:grouphug:

[Hooahguy]

darn, i wish i was 18. here in GA, to carry a weapon you must be 18. well, 1 year and 3 months to go....
:sad:

[BigTex]

I believe that'd be what we call lying:


And he wants to outlaw state concealed carry laws. :wall:

I need to get a (real, not .22) rifle. Going to get one from a dealer who hasn't jacked their prices astronomically.

And another pistol, probably a revolver.

I'm not truly pessimistic about AWB II passing, considering passing the AWB cost the dems Congress in 1994. And we just had that SCOTUS ruling. :beam:

CR

Don't go with a little pistol, invoke your right to bear arms get you a .50 cal berret.

Also, predictable gun sales go up when an anti 2nd amendment politician gets elected president.

[Crazed Rabbit]

First- I quite agree on the issue of convicted felons.

Second- The amendment refers only to "arms". "Arms", in the modern tense of the word, frankly includes a lot of things I don't think a lot of people should own.

Yup. I tend to think of it as side-arms borne by soldiers.


For example, Rocket Propelled Grenades, Rocket Launchers, Fortified Machine Guns, Flamethrowers, or even a nuclear weapon? How can we, if we interpret the amendment as strictly as you wish, preclude commoners from such weapons, in a legal sense? "Arms" is a broad definition, and, for the sake of sanity, I fail to see how we cannot pare it down in some degree.

Why not RPGs? They'd be way to expensive and impractical for almost all crime. Rocket launchers - I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Machine guns should be (and are) legal, (but you have to jump through a lot of paperwork). What's a 'fortified' machine gun? Flamethrowers are relatively easy to make on your own, so why not?


Don't go with a little pistol, invoke your right to bear arms get you a .50 cal berret.

Expensive. I love Mr. Barret's stand on the 2nd amendment, though. Maybe a M468.


darn, i wish i was 18. here in GA, to carry a weapon you must be 18. well, 1 year and 3 months to go....

Hey, we've got to be 21 here in Washington. Though we probably have better concealed carry laws.

CR

[Gregoshi]

Why not RPGs? They'd be way to expensive and impractical for almost all crime.
Ha! The Joker :7clown: used one in The Dark Knight didn't he? It packed quite a punchline.

Um, yeah. We now return you to your regularly scheduled arguments...

[LittleGrizzly]

Personally i don't see the value in personal ownership of guns... occasionally it might help protect someone but the majority of the time guns are used for violent and negative purposes... and to be honest i am alot happier about having both criminals and law abiding citizens without guns than i am about both having guns...

And yes criminals can get guns illegally but the fact is if you don't have them legally widely available like in britian than hardly any criminals have guns...

I really can't understand allowing handguns or machine guns to be legal, handguns are perfect for concealing and carrying around, perfect weapon for most criminals... machine guns are killing machines... plain and simple i would feel alot safer with no civilian allowed a machine gun...

[Tribesman]

Yup. I tend to think of it as side-arms borne by soldiers.

So you think of it as restricted to pistols then :inquisitive: Perhaps you mean small arms:idea2:


I need to get a (real, not .22) rifle
Do you remember what a .22 is ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


Why not RPGs? They'd be way to expensive and impractical for almost all crime. That depends , some people over here find them quite handy if they want to rob a cash delivery truck or if they are having a feud with neighbouring drug dealers .

[Hooahguy]

Personally i don't see the value in personal ownership of guns... occasionally it might help protect someone but the majority of the time guns are used for violent and negative purposes... and to be honest i am alot happier about having both criminals and law abiding citizens without guns than i am about both having guns...

And yes criminals can get guns illegally but the fact is if you don't have them legally widely available like in britian than hardly any criminals have guns...

I really can't understand allowing handguns or machine guns to be legal, handguns are perfect for concealing and carrying around, perfect weapon for most criminals... machine guns are killing machines... plain and simple i would feel alot safer with no civilian allowed a machine gun...
if you remember the whole debate with guns in DC last summer, records show that the number of shooting deaths in DC went up after they banned guns. then they finally revoked that law.

i would feel much safer if someone around me had a gun than if they didnt have one.
last May i think there was a shooting here in ATL. a cop and a bystander got shot, and a guy who has a weapon whot the gunman, who had an AK-47.

in israel, almost everyone is armed, and i feel a lot safer on the streets there than i do here.

if you try to ban guns, the criminals are just going to illigally buy them, and the ones who do abide by the laws arent armed, which makes them, like the ones who dont own guns already, open targets for the people who dont abide by the law.

[Lemur]

I find you position to be shallow and pedantic.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/159871_bicycle_feet_1_vw.jpg


Do you remember what a .22 is ?
Heaven help me, for once I know what he's talking about.

[seireikhaan]

Why not RPGs? They'd be way to expensive and impractical for almost all crime. Rocket launchers - I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Machine guns should be (and are) legal, (but you have to jump through a lot of paperwork). What's a 'fortified' machine gun? Flamethrowers are relatively easy to make on your own, so why not?
What I mean by a "fortified" machine gun, would be, for example, a WWII style bunker dug out in a person's front yard with a stationary gatling.

RPG's- if they're so expensive, how is that dirt poor goat herders in the middle east can coalesce and build up a multitude of the buggers? :inquisitive: They can't be that expensive if they're still used all over the world.

And to the one you ignored- what of a nuclear arm? If I'm rich enough, should I be allowed to purchase a nuclear arm? Its still an arm.


EDIT: @Lemur- :laugh2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

So you think of it as restricted to pistols then :inquisitive: Perhaps you mean small arms:idea2:

Ah, you actually made a good point. Small arms it is.


Do you remember what a .22 is ?

Yes, the thread were I pointed out the SCOTUS said you're full of bollux. :beam:

And you lied about Mexico's gun laws, and lied about why you did that too. :beam:



What I mean by a "fortified" machine gun, would be, for example, a WWII style bunker dug out in a person's front yard with a stationary gatling.

Well if its legal to own a machine gun, why shouldn't you be able to dig a foxhole and put a machine gun in it? I doubt anyone would though, as it seems like it'd be easy to steal that in the night.


And to the one you ignored- what of a nuclear arm?

No. Unless we get nuclear powered rifles in the future or something.


Personally i don't see the value in personal ownership of guns... occasionally it might help protect someone but the majority of the time guns are used for violent and negative purposes... and to be honest i am alot happier about having both criminals and law abiding citizens without guns than i am about both having guns...

Any proof of that? And without guns, criminals have more of an advantage over citizens.


And yes criminals can get guns illegally but the fact is if you don't have them legally widely available like in britian than hardly any criminals have guns...

And in Vermont people can carry concealed pistols without a license if they're law abiding, and they have some of the lowest crime rates.


I really can't understand allowing handguns or machine guns to be legal, handguns are perfect for concealing and carrying around, perfect weapon for most criminals...

Or for people to carry and protect themselves from criminals, who will always have a weapon and attack at their convenience.


machine guns are killing machines... plain and simple i would feel alot safer with no civilian allowed a machine gun...

Indeed, the 2nd amendment protects them - the purpose is to keep military weapons in the hands of the people.

CR

[seireikhaan]

No. Unless we get nuclear powered rifles in the future or something.


Indeed, the 2nd amendment protects them - the purpose is to keep military weapons in the hands of the people.
Don't you see the contradiction here? A nuclear arm is just as much an arm as a pistol. Why disallow private nuclear weapon ownership, by the standards of that second statement?

[Strike For The South]

I want an AR-15.....bad

[Strike For The South]

Don't you see the contradiction here? A nuclear arm is just as much an arm as a pistol. Why disallow private nuclear weapon ownership, by the standards of that second statement?

When the second amendment was written the Founding Fathers had no idea about nuclear weaponry. I consider any rifle or handgun to be within your rights anything else the states can decide.

[seireikhaan]

When the second amendment was written the Founding Fathers had no idea about nuclear weaponry.
Undoubtedly. However, that does not change the fact that a nuclear weapon is still an arm, by definition.


I consider any rifle or handgun to be within your rights anything else the states can decide.
Alrighty.

[Lemur]

I want an AR-15.....bad
So what's stopping you from going out and getting one? And there are a million high-quality knockoffs of the AR-15, many of which cost a lot less. And didn't HK create a modified AR-15 that has something like 500% more reliability?

You just need to save up your shekels, son.

-edit-

Ah, found it. The HK 416, now there's your ticket, my friend. And supposedly it will be sold to us civvies (http://hkpro.com/hkpro416civilianannouncement.htm), although I'm not clear on whether or not they're going to create a semi-auto-only variant. Read up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_HK416).

[Strike For The South]

Undoubtedly. However, that does not change the fact that a nuclear weapon is still an arm, by definition.


Alrighty.

yes but the strictest definition however a line does need to be drawn you agree?

[Strike For The South]

So what's stopping you from going out and getting one? And there are a million high-quality knockoffs of the AR-15, many of which cost a lot less. And didn't HK create a modified AR-15 that has something like 500% more reliability?

You just need to save up your shekels, son.

You obviously haven't met my mum....or my spending habits.

[seireikhaan]

yes but the strictest definition however a line does need to be drawn you agree?
Indeed, I agree a line needs to be drawn. My entire point with the discussion is to point out the absurdity of interpreting the amendment completely from a super-strict point of view and say that the government can't legislate any restriction on any arm, due to the vast number of highly destructive weaponry that is still classified as an "arm" or "armament". There has to be a line- the question, of course, is where.

[Strike For The South]

Indeed, I agree a line needs to be drawn. My entire point with the discussion is to point out the absurdity of interpreting the amendment completely from a super-strict point of view and say that the government can't legislate any restriction on any arm, due to the vast number of highly destructive weaponry that is still classified as an "arm" or "armament". There has to be a line- the question, of course, is where.

Some interpretation is ok but most of the time interpretation turns into legislation. So I am wary.

[Tribesman]

Yes, the thread were I pointed out the SCOTUS said you're full of bollux.
And there was me thinking it was the thread where you kept on insisting you were right long after it was obvious you were wrong


And you lied about Mexico's gun laws, and lied about why you did that too.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Are you having your usual problems with the english language again Rabbit

[LittleGrizzly]

Any proof of that?

Are you trying to claim that more gun deaths are civilians stopping crime than criminals shooting civilians ?

And without guns, criminals have more of an advantage over citizens.

Really... because i would love to see a criminal run into a bank with a swiss army knife or something... the majority of criminals don't have guns over here...

And in Vermont people can carry concealed pistols without a license if they're law abiding, and they have some of the lowest crime rates.

Great if it works there, but handguns are the perfecct weapon for criminal activity, if we had them widespread over here im sure it would be the criminal weapon of choice, if criminals are limited to big guns they won't take them out because it will look dodgy (or the majority won't)

We have very few gun deaths in the uk, so our gun policy is working extremely well....

Or for people to carry and protect themselves from criminals, who will always have a weapon and attack at their convenience.

The majority of uk criminals don't walk around with handguns so there is no need for people to walk round with handguns...

Indeed, the 2nd amendment protects them - the purpose is to keep military weapons in the hands of the people.

I can understand its reasoning at the time... but for the purposes of overthrowing the goverment it has past its day.... people just hang onto it now for a variety of reasons....mostly which i disagree with...

[Spino]

When the second amendment was written the Founding Fathers had no idea about nuclear weaponry. I consider any rifle or handgun to be within your rights anything else the states can decide.

True, nukes are in a class all their own... as are biological and chemical agents. But back then they did have things like heavy artillery and explosive 'case shot'. As far as I know any US citizen, provided they were wealthy enough, could build, own and/or operate artillery or the relevant ammunition without restriction.

To give some perspective having the average joe own his very own ship of the line was probably grounds for government intervention. Up until the advent of nukes capital ships were serious political business and limitations regarding their ownership were commonly laid out in arms treaties. I believe the East India Trading Company owned and operated its own naval vessels. It wasn't so much an exercise of individual rights as it was the British government's acknowledgement that its navy was spread too thin to disallow a lucrative company from lending a hand to keep the empire's trade routes open for business.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Not to mention, Spino, on how heavily the rebels in the Revolution relied on privately-owned privateers.

[Tribesman]

Great if it works there
Well grizzly why does it work there , is it because Vermont has those gun laws or because its Vermont ?
Big cities have more crime don't they , does Vermont have big cities ?Or are some of its cities the size of what other people would call small villages .
Perhaps it has high unemployment , maybe youth unemployment , lots of marginalisation and other things that can lead to high crime ?
Nope , but it does have liberal gun laws so it is obviously the gun laws not social conditions which make Vermont a gun nuts favourite example of how guns work to reduce crime .


Not to mention, Spino, on how heavily the rebels in the Revolution relied on privately-owned privateers.
The privateers in the revolution had a negligable effect , it was the intervention European states naval forces that had an impact on the outcome , in fact many will say that it was the decisive impact .


I believe the East India Trading Company owned and operated its own naval vessels. It wasn't so much an exercise of individual rights as it was the British government's acknowledgement that its navy was spread too thin to disallow a lucrative company from lending a hand to keep the empire's trade routes open for business.
Is that why the East India Company was constantly petitioning the admiralty to provide naval escorts for its own "warships" ?

[Gregoshi]

I've seen this on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSmqVhBJVkk)...:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: