Gun Control [Archive] - Page 2

Crazed Rabbit

11-16-2006, 23:52

Yes we are allow to defend ourselves with Personal Arms RedLeg, but nothing is saying that we should be given AK-47's to defend our homes and families, and end up having a half a hour gunfight with a few gangbangers that also broke into your house with M-16's.

Correct; one would have to buy the AK-47.

Military arms are not needed to defend the people's freedom.

How can you know that? What if you are wrong - should we limit our rights because we don't think we'll need to use them in full?

How can one read the second and surmise that military arms can be banned? Military arms are still arms - "the birthright of every American". They are the only arms that matter.

You make much of the military being one percent of the population. Iraq has about 26 million people, and we have about 141k soldiers in Iraq. While not a model for complete control, we are maintaining some sembalence of control with less than 1%, in a control where the insurgents have RPGs and other military weapons.

Did they intend the people to have access to every possible type of weapon, or as men of their time did the intend the people to have the ability to rightfully defend themselves with personal arms.

The second was never about self defense. That was a side benefit. The Founders valued freedom - why in hell would they want the right of the people to be limited by the state? The purpose was to overthrow tyranny - and this purpose and right is infringed upon when any arms are banned.

Do you need military grade weapons to defeat the police forces of cities.
Rights are never about, and have never been about 'need'. But considering the increasing militarization of large police forces - SWAT teams, M4s in squad cars, body armor, your question might not have the answer you intended.

Think back to the 1994 Assualt weapon's ban, Why did congress place an automatic expiration date into that piece of the legislation? Was it because - unlike the Machine gun ban of 1934 - they knew that the legislation would not stand up to judicial review? Then there is the Miller case where the court also ruled in favor of government restriction on weapons.
Perhaps because they didn't have the votes for a permanent ban - democrats tried recently to make the ban permanent, you know.
The miller case allowed restrictions on the sawed off shotgun only because they didn't view it as a military weapon.

I trust the military to react like the citizens of the nation that they are.

I would not place my freedom entirely in the trust of other men, beacuse then I do not have it.

Well regulated has several meanings. I am not saying your interpation is necessarily wrong, but to believe it means only well prepared means one must discount the militia clauses in the Legislative Section of the constitution
You mean this?

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

You could argue government can control the arms it gives the militia, not what arms people can purchase.

I respect you Redleg, but I must strongly disagree.

Crazed Rabbit

Redleg

11-17-2006, 02:01

How can you know that? What if you are wrong - should we limit our rights because we don't think we'll need to use them in full?

Without the proper training most military weapons are more dangerous to the user versus the intended target. The militia clause in the 2nd Amendment address this issue.

How can one read the second and surmise that military arms can be banned? Military arms are still arms - "the birthright of every American". They are the only arms that matter.

There is no birth right to ordance in the constitution only arms. I am addressing what I believe to be the orginal intent of the drafters. Arms primarily dealt with the weapons that were available for individual use. Cannons were often refered to as ordance in the time period that the constitution was drafted. If one takes a good look at the constitution and the case law that has followed the government has routinely banned military weapons for private use. For instance while you can buy a tank or a cannon - it has been de-militarized. In otherwords it can not be used as it was orginally designed to fire munitions.

You make much of the military being one percent of the population. Iraq has about 26 million people, and we have about 141k soldiers in Iraq. While not a model for complete control, we are maintaining some sembalence of control with less than 1%, in a control where the insurgents have RPGs and other military weapons.

Your discounting the Iraqi forces in country and the other nations forces. The insurgents are primarily armed with personal weapons, and Improved Explosive devices. The RPG's yes they have, but notice the pure havoc they are creating with the standard equipement of the militia, a shoulder fired rifle. Then your forgeting the mortars that came available from the military that just faded away versus fighting. Which goes to my point.

The second was never about self defense. That was a side benefit. The Founders valued freedom - why in hell would they want the right of the people to be limited by the state? The purpose was to overthrow tyranny - and this purpose and right is infringed upon when any arms are banned.

You might want to read into the wording and the reasons of the 2nd Amendment a little more clearly. I linked an article already that states otherwise, you also have posted a link that states otherwise also. Defense of nation was the primary purpose of the clause - which is what I believed what I stated first. The purpose to overthrow tyranny is a side-benefit to the clause. I might of misspoke and stated self-defense was a primariy cause - and if I did, it was incorrect.

Rights are never about, and have never been about 'need'. But considering the increasing militarization of large police forces - SWAT teams, M4s in squad cars, body armor, your question might not have the answer you intended.

Actually it does have the intended answer. Well placed rifle fire defeats many modern things - does that equipment make it difficult - you betcha, but if the government has become a tryanny that your imaging - law and order has alreadly broken down if the people are revolting.

Perhaps because they didn't have the votes for a permanent ban - democrats tried recently to make the ban permanent, you know.
The miller case allowed restrictions on the sawed off shotgun only because they didn't view it as a military weapon.

Miller is cited as showing that the 2nd Amendment allows for restrictions. The Machine Gun law of 1934 or is it 1938, is cited as it gives a prime examble of a law that has stood up to challenges concerning restriction of ownership of weapons.

The automatic expiration date was there to prevent a constitutional challenge in my opinion.

I would not place my freedom entirely in the trust of other men, beacuse then I do not have it.

I place my freedom in my own hands and the country's freedom in the hands of all citizens.

You mean this?

yep

You could argue government can control the arms it gives the militia, not what arms people can purchase.

The point is it can be interpated either way. The 2nd Amendment does not over-ride that clause. With the wording of the constitution, the amendment, and what arms was normally meant at the time of drafting, one can logically argue that military weapons are not meant for the people. Which is indeed what is the norm in the United States. You can not purchase many of the pieces of equipment that the military uses.

I respect you Redleg, but I must strongly disagree.

Crazed Rabbit

Disagreement is fine, civil discourse to discuss that disagreement is what democracy is all about.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-17-2006, 03:04

How about a fact that a light machine gun like M-60 shoots bursts. When a trained machine gunner shoots a short burts he fires 2- 6 bullets per burst. Now when someone breaks into your home and in panic you start firing with your M-60,which have no single shot mode, how many rounds do you think mostly likely shoot? 10,15, half of the ammo belt? Would it be possible that after the few first rounds hit the intruder the rest how many you ever may happen to release start hitting walls,neighbours walls and windows and maybe one of the neighbours kids or your family members head,torso or limb?
Now if you had lets say shotgun or that baseball bat you could have stopped the intruder without endangering others. So machine gun for self defence is not only unpractical becouse its heavier then normal rifle,shotgun or pistol, but also unpractical and dangerous, becouse its ment to be platoon,squadron or team support weapon not a self defence weapon.

Very Much Argeed, I don't feel like getting off with Self-Defense after killing someone who breaks into my house, but then get a mansualghuter charge for killng the next door neghbior's kid :no:

Gawain of Orkeny

11-17-2006, 23:49

There is no birth right to ordance in the constitution only arms. I am addressing what I believe to be the orginal intent of the drafters. Arms primarily dealt with the weapons that were available for individual use. Cannons were often refered to as ordance in the time period that the constitution was drafted.

Can you tell me one weapon of that era that was used by the Army that was forbbiden to american citizens? I dont know of any.

The second was never about self defense. That was a side benefit. The Founders valued freedom - why in hell would they want the right of the people to be limited by the state? The purpose was to overthrow tyranny - and this purpose and right is infringed upon when any arms are banned.

Not only that the purpose of the bill of rights is to limit the power of the government not the people. If we read it as many here suggest, even Redleg we get just the opposite result.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-18-2006, 04:52

Many Gawain, We can name many that are banned, or was banned anyhow..

Crazed Rabbit

11-18-2006, 05:03

Really? You know he was talking of the era right after the Revolutionary War?

So machine gun for self defence is not only unpractical becouse its heavier then normal rifle,shotgun or pistol, but also unpractical and dangerous, becouse its ment to be platoon,squadron or team support weapon not a self defence weapon.

And what if you've got an angry mob headed towards your house, in the middle of widespread riots?

Crazed Rabbit

Aenlic

11-18-2006, 09:29

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-18-2006, 17:07

Really? You know he was talking of the era right after the Revolutionary War?

And what if you've got an angry mob headed towards your house, in the middle of widespread riots?

Crazed Rabbit

SO What. What is the chances of that happening?? If SO, go ask ym grandfather, he got so many bullets and guns, he could Give a gun and 40 rounds out to everyone on page 9 of this fourm :laugh4:

But Really, That what Claymores,Landmines and barbred/Razor wire is for....

and AK-47's
you buy on the Blackmarket :laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

11-18-2006, 19:57

SO What. What is the chances of that happening??

One should prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Besides, ever heard of the LA Riots?

That's what the claymore mines, razor wire, bunker and chain gun are for!
Hey, I'd trade a M60 for that.

Crazed Rabbit

Redleg

11-18-2006, 20:53

Really? You know he was talking of the era right after the Revolutionary War?

Really, I guess you rather ignore the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists that happened. Care to guess how many drafts were debated concerning what became the final version of the 2nd Amendment?

Then it seems some are missing the interpations that have stood up to court review.

And what if you've got an angry mob headed towards your house, in the middle of widespread riots?

Crazed Rabbit

One does not need a machine gun to handle an angry riot. There are several effective means to handle an angry mob that does not involve using machine guns.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-19-2006, 00:32

One should prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Besides, ever heard of the LA Riots?

Hey, I'd trade a M60 for that.

Crazed Rabbit

Yea I did. Don't need Machine guns for a Angry Mob Rabbit.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-19-2006, 02:48

Really, I guess you rather ignore the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists that happened. Care to guess how many drafts were debated concerning what became the final version of the 2nd Amendment?

Then it seems some are missing the interpations that have stood up to court review.

Again I ask what weapons were forbiden to US citizens at the time of the writting of the 2nd amendment? And isnt the purpose of the bill of rights to limit the power of the government and insure the rights of the people?

Seamus Fermanagh

11-19-2006, 04:59

Consider the following list of quotations, drawn (for the most part) from those writing during the founding of our republic or shortly after its creation.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

It would seem that many did view the right to keep and bear arms not only a tool of personal defense, but a potential defense against government tyranny. Some even defined "arms" as any of the tools of the soldier.

I may choose to foregoe the ownership and use of my own M60 for personal defense -- there are a few practical drawbacks -- and the claymores are a little finicky for long-term emplacement, but its hard to view restrictions on weapons ownership as constitutionally correct for any non-felon.

Redleg

11-19-2006, 20:39

Again I ask what weapons were forbiden to US citizens at the time of the writting of the 2nd amendment?

Cannons were limited. If one reads some of the older laws, one will quickly find that merchant ships could not be armed if they sailed from the United States. This changed because of the War going on between Britian and France where both sides were regularly capturing American Shipping.

The third common effort of the mercantile citizenry was self-defense. The greatest irony of the Navy's early sparseness was the multitude of extant vessels whose owners begged the government to arm them to protect the nation's ports and cargo. When considering the resources available to the nation for the defense of commerce, historians often forget the potential for arming the merchant vessels themselves, which were otherwise completely defenseless against a privateer's cannons. Existing laws prohibited the docking or departure of any armed civilian vessel from American ports, which had the dual effect of protecting the harbors for enemy powers and denying protection to domestic ships on the high seas. As early as October 1797, President Adams considered waiving this restriction on American merchant vessels, but Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, whose customs collectors enforced the law, was cool to the idea. On 19 March 1798, Adams withdrew by executive order the requirements for local customs officials to restrain armed American merchant vessels from leaving port.[35] Congress finally responded on 25 June, the same day it passed the subscription ship bill, by approving legislation that allowed private vessels to sail armed out of American ports. Furthermore, the act empowered merchant crews to "oppose and defend against any search, restraint or seizure…by the commander or crew of any vessel under French colors." It placed only one condition: owners must post bonds to the government, which would be repaid only if the ship did not use its arms against neutral vessels.[36] (The restriction ensured that these vessels were not privateers, free to hunt and capture French cargo ships. The U.S. government authorized 365 privateers in the Quasi-War, about one-half of which were registered in Southern states, and one-third from New England. However, none of these saw any action in the West Indies.)[37]

http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH42/Swan42.html

And isnt the purpose of the bill of rights to limit the power of the government and insure the rights of the people?

Yes indeed.

The standard rethoric of we have to have weapons to defend ourselves from a tryannical government, doesn't bode well when the military and the police forces of this nation together do not exceed 2% of the population. Nor has anyone been able to demonstrate that weapons legislation did not exist prior to the 20th Century. As the link provided above shows that yes indeed their was legislation to prevent the arming of the civilian population. If we had a higher percentage of the population under federal arms then that arguement might hold sway with me - however research would indicate that from the very beginning their were two main positions on the 2nd Amendment.

The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. The Federalist debates during the drafting of the constitution demonstrate that the 2nd Amendment had several interpations, and yes even drafts even while it was being ratified. Weapon control legislation has been ongoing for some time now, and it passes review of the courts and congress multiple times when it deals with any weapon outside of those that are considered personal arms.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-19-2006, 22:37

Gawain of Orkeny

11-20-2006, 17:55

Cannons were limited. If one reads some of the older laws, one will quickly find that merchant ships could not be armed if they sailed from the United States

That doesnt apply as it only limits arms outside the borders of the US. Any citizen could own any cannon he could afford.

'As the link provided above shows that yes indeed their was legislation to prevent the arming of the civilian population.'

If you notice they quickly saw the folly and error of this. They we were about vessels from another nation docking not american ones. On top of that it again didnt apply to what a citizen could 'carry' in the US only in the harbors.

'If we had a higher percentage of the population under federal arms then that arguement might hold sway with me - however research would indicate that from the very beginning their were two main positions on the 2nd Amendment. '

So as we increase and decrease the size of the armed forces and police the meaning of the 2nd amendment changes?

Redleg

11-20-2006, 18:43

That doesnt apply as it only limits arms outside the borders of the US. Any citizen could own any cannon he could afford.

Sorry Gawain - it does apply because it was American Flagged Merchants that were living out of American Ports.

'As the link provided above shows that yes indeed their was legislation to prevent the arming of the civilian population.'

If you notice they quickly saw the folly and error of this. They we were about vessels from another nation docking not american ones. On top of that it again didnt apply to what a citizen could 'carry' in the US only in the harbors.

They were forced to notice the folly of the legislation because of the action resulting from war. Even though they changed the legislation it does show that the founding fathers had some restrictions on arms. Which goes to the arguement about gun control.

'If we had a higher percentage of the population under federal arms then that arguement might hold sway with me - however research would indicate that from the very beginning their were two main positions on the 2nd Amendment. '

So as we increase and decrease the size of the armed forces and police the meaning of the 2nd amendment changes?
[/quote]

Not at all - nice attempt but that was not what I stated. The arguement about the tryanny of the government as evoked by the police and the military does not hold sway with me. In otherwords I simply reject that arguement. One can not adequately demonstrate that the size of the military prevents the people from revolting and overthrowing the government. One can not adequately demonstrate to me that when the people desire to overthrow the tryanny of the government that the lack of military grade weapons has prevented the overthrow of the government. The are plently examble were inadequate equiped rebels overthrew a government that they no longer could tolerate.

Crazed Rabbit

11-20-2006, 20:16

The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. The Federalist debates during the drafting of the constitution demonstrate that the 2nd Amendment had several interpations, and yes even drafts even while it was being ratified. Weapon control legislation has been ongoing for some time now, and it passes review of the courts and congress multiple times when it deals with any weapon outside of those that are considered personal arms.

And are you arguing that court approval of laws make them right?

As Gawain said, there were no restrictions on owning cannons in the USA.

The arguement about the tryanny of the government as evoked by the police and the military does not hold sway with me. In otherwords I simply reject that arguement. One can not adequately demonstrate that the size of the military prevents the people from revolting and overthrowing the government.

Once again, need does not matter in the slightest. We are talking about a right enshrined in the constitution- we do not have to demonstrate need. Your belief is based on several assumptions - what if those do not com true?

Why should we restrain ourselves from fully exercising our rights because of a belief we do not need them?
This is especially problematic when we talk of the 2nd amendment - the one that was designed for a 'doomsday scenario'. That means, to arm ourselves for scenario we cannot forsee. Prudence dictates we prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Arguing that we shouldn't prepare for the worst because we're pretty sure it won't happen is not smart.

Crazed Rabbit

Redleg

11-20-2006, 20:25

And are you arguing that court approval of laws make them right?

Legal presendence has standing do to the fact tha we are a nation of laws.

As Gawain said, there were no restrictions on owning cannons in the USA.

As shown that is incorrect - the drafters did indeed place restrictions on weapon ownership.

Once again, need does not matter in the slightest. We are talking about a right enshrined in the constitution- we do not have to demonstrate need. Your belief is based on several assumptions - what if those do not com true?

Once again I did not state need - your reaching. Are you assuming that citizens in the military who are citizens just as you are will defend a tryanny?

Why should we restrain ourselves from fully exercising our rights because of a belief we do not need them?

Again reaching for an arguement I did not make. If you continue this course then I will have to assume you have no farther arguement to present.

Nowhere have I stated that one should not fully exercise their right to keep and bear arms. What I have stated is that the founding fathers intent was toward personal arms - not every weapon in the current military structure.

This is especially problematic when we talk of the 2nd amendment - the one that was designed for a 'doomsday scenario'. That means, to arm ourselves for scenario we cannot forsee. Prudence dictates we prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Arguing that we shouldn't prepare for the worst because we're pretty sure it won't happen is not smart.

Crazed Rabbit

Again taking a position I have not taken is a "strawman" arguement. Again I reject the "doomsday" arguement you have presented as justifing owning tanks, nuclear weapons, and all other non-personal weapons. The 2nd Amendment itself is not being rejected nor argued against. Its the interpation that it means all weapons versus personal arms. Can you adequately demonstrated a popular rebellion not being successful when the people decided to overthrow a tryannical government.

Crazed Rabbit

11-20-2006, 20:57

Legal presendence has standing do to the fact tha we are a nation of laws.
That doesn't mean it's right: Kelo vs New London is also law.

As shown that is incorrect - the drafters did indeed place restrictions on weapon ownership.
On merchant ships,not on private ownership at your home.

Once again I did not state need - your reaching. Are you assuming that citizens in the military who are citizens just as you are will defend a tryanny?
I am not assuming that - I want to be prepared if they do.

Again reaching for an arguement I did not make. If you continue this course then I will have to assume you have no farther arguement to present.

Nowhere have I stated that one should not fully exercise their right to keep and bear arms. What I have stated is that the founding fathers intent was toward personal arms - not every weapon in the current military structure.
You also seem to define machine guns like the SAW as not being personal arms- you are restricting the meaning of the amendment.

Again taking a position I have not taken is a "strawman" arguement. Again I reject the "doomsday" arguement you have presented as justifing owning tanks, nuclear weapons, and all other non-personal weapons. The 2nd Amendment itself is not being rejected nor argued against. Its the interpation that it means all weapons versus personal arms. Can you adequately demonstrated a popular rebellion not being successful when the people decided to overthrow a tryannical government.

I am not trying to justify ownership of nuclear weapons.
Oh, I'd use Hungary in 1956 as an example. A few anti-tank weapons might have helped there.

And arms can be taken as more than just personal weapons, assuming that since the amendment does not mention ordance it does not include anything beyond personal rifles seems foolish to me. There are quotes and evidence from the day that arms meant "all the terrible implements of the soldier". If the amendment was to prepare a citizen's militia against foreign invasion or oppose a tyrannical government, then it would make sense for arms to include all arms of war. You think that arms beyond a rifle are not needed; how does this affect the meaning of the amendment?

Crazed Rabbit

Redleg

11-20-2006, 21:17

That doesn't mean it's right: Kelo vs New London is also law.

And until it its overturn it remains a valid interpation of the law. Wether we like it or not.

On merchant ships,not on private ownership at your home.

Private ownership is private ownership wether it be your home, your person, or any other property. You can not discount the restriction was placed.

I am not assuming that - I want to be prepared if they do.

Personal arms will insure your ability to defend yourself.

You also seem to define machine guns like the SAW as not being personal arms- you are restricting the meaning of the amendment.

THe SAW is not a personal arm that is exactly what I stated. Several Laws passed by congress and upheld in the courts via Miller, agree with that postion.

I am not trying to justify ownership of nuclear weapons.
Oh, I'd use Hungary in 1956 as an example. A few anti-tank weapons might have helped there.

Might and might not have.

And arms can be taken as more than just personal weapons, assuming that since the amendment does not mention ordance it does not include anything beyond personal rifles seems foolish to me. There are quotes and evidence from the day that arms meant "all the terrible implements of the soldier". If the amendment was to prepare a citizen's militia against foreign invasion or oppose a tyrannical government, then it would make sense for arms to include all arms of war. You think that arms beyond a rifle are not needed; how does this affect the meaning of the amendment?

Crazed Rabbit

It does not affect the meaning of the amendment. You have the right to arm yourself within the definitions provided by the constitution and the law. The interpation I use happens to concide with the current laws that we have in this nation.

Crazed Rabbit

11-20-2006, 21:57

And until it its overturn it remains a valid interpation of the law. Wether we like it or not.
That does not make it right, and it cannot be used as proof that a law is just or in accordance with the constitution.

Private ownership is private ownership wether it be your home, your person, or any other property. You can not discount the restriction was placed.
And one cannot discount that they were only regulated under specific circumstances. Considering your interpretation of how the bill of rights allows government regulation even on guns protected by the amendment, such a restriction would not preclude cannon from being a protected arm.

THe SAW is not a personal arm that is exactly what I stated. Several Laws passed by congress and upheld in the courts via Miller, agree with that postion.
Miller upheld laws against sawed off shotguns solely because they were thought (wrongly) by the SCOTUS to have no military application - which SAWs obviously due. The passing of laws does not mean the laws are constitutional, even if upheld by the courts. The constitution does not change because of laws being passed. They are passed by failible men.

Might and might not have.
As I aid before- better to prepare for the worst.

It does not affect the meaning of the amendment. You have the right to arm yourself within the definitions provided by the constitution and the law. The interpation I use happens to concide with the current laws that we have in this nation.
Where in the constitution are arms defined solely as personal weapons? The amendment says arms - not personal arms. The current laws do not define the constitution - then we would have to accept the first amendment not covering political speech.

Crazed Rabbit

Redleg

11-20-2006, 22:33

That does not make it right, and it cannot be used as proof that a law is just or in accordance with the constitution.

I never stated that its just, just that it has been found not to be in violation of the constitution.

And one cannot discount that they were only regulated under specific circumstances. Considering your interpretation of how the bill of rights allows government regulation even on guns protected by the amendment, such a restriction would not preclude cannon from being a protected arm.

Your arguement was that the founding fathers did not place any restriction on arms. The merchant arms restriction shows that arguement to be false.

Miller upheld laws against sawed off shotguns solely because they were thought (wrongly) by the SCOTUS to have no military application - which SAWs obviously due. The passing of laws does not mean the laws are constitutional, even if upheld by the courts. The constitution does not change because of laws being passed. They are passed by failible men.

Your arguing a bad postion for a nation that is based upon law.

As I aid before- better to prepare for the worst.

Fair enough - I don't react to negatives only as a justification of a postion.

Where in the constitution are arms defined solely as personal weapons? The amendment says arms - not personal arms. The current laws do not define the constitution - then we would have to accept the first amendment not covering political speech.

Crazed Rabbit

Again the arguement is of intent of the amendment. The wording is vague enough to allow several interpations based upon people's will toward the subject. Notice how I have not called your postion incorrect because it happens to fall in line with the Anti-Federalist cause of the drafters of the constitution. My postion falls in line with the Federalist cause of the drafters of the constitution. Attempts to discount the history and the presedence of law does not make for a sound arguement to support the postion that the amendment means all weapons.

Both the founding fathers had emplaced restrictions upon arms ownership as shown by the laws regarding merchant shipping being armed, and the laws this nations have passed since our inception as a nation.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-20-2006, 22:35

Yes, but equiping your Population with Mitilarty Weapons, like SAW's and Anti Tank guns, Hand Grenades and Claymores, it's not going to look pretty when they get 101% of the Federal Goverment and ends up leading a rebellion

10 pages so far... Boy, I know how to make good Debates :) :)

Vuk

11-21-2006, 00:18

Adrian II

11-21-2006, 00:24

10 pages so far... Boy, I know how to make good Debates :) :)Do you know how to end it properly, too?

I mean, I hate to disappoint you - but if you start a thread about gun control, abortion or a couple of other subjects here, you can pretty much go and trek through the Himalayas on donkey-back for three months and it will still be running by the time you come back. :dizzy2:

drone

11-21-2006, 00:32

I find it kind of amusing that this thread has pretty much given up on the "should citizens have guns" line of arguments, and progressed to "should citizens be allowed tanks/RPGs/mortars/SAWs/nukes". Probably shows just how much gun control has become a third rail of US politics. ~D

Gawain of Orkeny

11-21-2006, 01:24

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Redleg
Legal presendence has standing do to the fact tha we are a nation of laws.

And you can only find on incident of arms regualtion and it doesnt aspply to a citizen but a ship as has been mentioned. The same cannon that was ilegal on a ship was perfectly legal for a citizen to own. On top of that the law was strickin down.

Your arguement was that the founding fathers did not place any restriction on arms. The merchant arms restriction shows that arguement to be false

You mean irrelevant. It neither applies to citizens of the US nor anyone in the US only to ships in US harbors

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-21-2006, 02:47

Who exactly said SAW's, Anti tank guns, Hand Grenades, or Claymores?

Read pages 7-10, and you will See every about them. Not going to quote each comment Vuk..

Redleg

11-21-2006, 03:03

[QUOTE]

And you can only find on incident of arms regualtion and it doesnt aspply to a citizen but a ship as has been mentioned. The same cannon that was ilegal on a ship was perfectly legal for a citizen to own. On top of that the law was strickin down.

One is all it takes to prove that the founding fathers had different ideas concerning the 2nd Amendment and regulations then what some are willing to state that they did. The ship is a private enterprise, private property of a citizen of the United States and initially citizens were not allowed to arm their merchant ships. Was it struck down - sure it was, but your question was for me to demonstrate an instance where the founding fathers restricted arms ownership. That point has been shown.

You mean irrelevant. It neither applies to citizens of the US nor anyone in the US only to ships in US harbors
Minus points for resorting to such attempt. Merchant ships owned by United States citizens are still part of the protections of the United States Constitution.

Also the law applied to all civilian ships regardless of what flag it flew.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-21-2006, 04:35

One is all it takes to prove that the founding fathers had different ideas concerning the 2nd Amendment

They had different ideas about almost everything. I dont think any of them thought to use the 2nd amendment however to supress the peoples right to bear arms. Thats the same mistake people make about the first. It certainly was never meant to limit the peoples freedom of religous expression. Once more the bill of rights is to protect the rights of the people and limit the power of the government. Not the otherway around as you read it.

The ship is a private enterprise, private property of a citizen of the United States and initially citizens were not allowed to arm their merchant ships

But they were allowed to own cannon and they could own ships with guns they just couldnt enter US ports with them.

Minus points for resorting to such attempt. Merchant ships owned by United States citizens are still part of the protections of the United States Constitution

There you go. Taking away a right is what you call protection?

Redleg

11-21-2006, 04:47

They had different ideas about almost everything. I dont think any of them thought to use the 2nd amendment however to supress the peoples right to bear arms. Thats the same mistake people make about the first. It certainly was never meant to limit the peoples freedom of religous expression. Once more the bill of rights is to protect the rights of the people and limit the power of the government. Not the otherway around as you read it.

The 2nd Amendment is not being used to supress the people's right to keep and bear arms. When one takes that approach in thier arguement, then forget what the debate was from the very beginning of the constitution and the debates around the amendment itself.

But they were allowed to own cannon and they could own ships with guns they just couldnt enter US ports with them.

You should re-read the quote. Existing laws prohibited the docking or departure of any armed civilian vessel from American ports, which had the dual effect of protecting the harbors for enemy powers and denying protection to domestic ships on the high seas.

There you go. Taking away a right is what you call protection?
Again demonstrate to me where the constitution prevents the government from regulating weapons? The militia clauses allow for just that, to include the wording of the second amendment. Legislative law and judicial review continues to support that postion. Now if I was arguing that one must give up their handguns - you could make that accussation on my position. If I was arguing that you must give up your rifles - you can make that accusation. If I stated you must give up all your personal arms - you can make that accusation. But since I have never claimed such a postion your statement here is false.

So because my interpation is that the 2nd Amendment means personal arms - you seem to translate that into a taking away of a right. Very weak Giawan

Gawain of Orkeny

11-21-2006, 06:01

The 2nd Amendment is not being used to supress the people's right to keep and bear arms. When one takes that approach in thier arguement, then forget what the debate was from the very beginning of the constitution and the debates around the amendment itself.

Maybe you can show me a quote from one in which he esposes that the 2nd amendment means the government can control what weapons you can own. Once more is the bill of rights there to protect the rights of the people or give power to the government? By your reasoning its the latter.

You should re-read the quote. Existing laws prohibited the docking or departure of any armed civilian vessel from American ports, which had the dual effect of protecting the harbors for enemy powers and denying protection to domestic ships on the high seas.

Thats what I said. If you had your own dock you could have an armed vessel however, And again this law was quickly changed. It seems to be unconstitutional anyway and violates the 2nd amendment if we are to extend it to our waters.

Again demonstrate to me where the constitution prevents the government from regulating weapons

I didnt say it did. However your argument that this is found in the 2nd amendment is spurious at best. Once more the bill of rights doesnt empower the governent.

That the government is charged with arming the militia doesnt mean they cant arm themselves. Im sure in the war of 1812 anyone who showed up with a cannon was more than welcome and the bigger the cannon the better. Arent soldiers still allowed to carry personal weapons?

So because my interpation is that the 2nd Amendment means personal arms - you seem to translate that into a taking away of a right. Very weak Giawan

Since there is no mention of it being limited to personal arms and in those days you could own any weapon available I dont see how you have a leg to stand on.

IrishArmenian

11-21-2006, 06:53

Gun Control is a noble cause, but honestly it has one giant flaw: If one bans guns, then more people will be killed with knives, crossbows, and other non-firearm weapons.

Vuk

11-21-2006, 12:21

Gun Control is a noble cause, but honestly it has one giant flaw: If one bans guns, then more people will be killed with knives, crossbows, and other non-firearm weapons.

Not to mention that militaries will never get rid of their guns, and criminals will always have them available. Gun control will only dis-arm legal, law abiding citizens who will now not be able to defend themselves from criminals. The criminals will ALWAYS get guns! Guns are something you will never be able to wipe out, and making them illegal just restricts law abiding citizens right to safety and self defense - their most basic and inherent right.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-21-2006, 14:17

Not to mention that militaries will never get rid of their guns, and criminals will always have them available. Gun control will only dis-arm legal, law abiding citizens who will now not be able to defend themselves from criminals. The criminals will ALWAYS get guns! Guns are something you will never be able to wipe out, and making them illegal just restricts law abiding citizens right to safety and self defense - their most basic and inherent right.

While I agree with your sentiments, Vuk, honesty compels me to note that gun control can reduce the number of deaths resulting from violence.

It is far easier, psychologically, to pull a trigger than it is to get up close and personal to shiv someone. Moreover, since it requires very little physical strength, it is a form of lethal violence that can be equally practiced by all. So guns, particularly handguns, probably do increase the number of fatalities -- even if the incidence of violence would be the same (and I agre it would).

Gun control, by reducing the "ease" of lethal violence, would likely result in a decrease in the number of fatalities. What impact the absence of guns would have on self defense, how much it would convert the existing incidences of violence into an exercise of tyranny by the physically stronger, would be hard to estimate.

To be effective, gun control would have to involve the confiscation of any and all firearms down to and including "non-firing" collectibles. Only a sweeping and draconian effort by the government to actively remove all guns from the hands of any but the military could hope to make guns such a rarity that their use -- even by criminals -- was "unthinkable."

Needless to say, individual rights would go by the board in the process.

Vuk

11-21-2006, 18:25

While I agree with your sentiments, Vuk, honesty compels me to note that gun control can reduce the number of deaths resulting from violence.

It is far easier, psychologically, to pull a trigger than it is to get up close and personal to shiv someone. Moreover, since it requires very little physical strength, it is a form of lethal violence that can be equally practiced by all. So guns, particularly handguns, probably do increase the number of fatalities -- even if the incidence of violence would be the same (and I agre it would).

Gun control, by reducing the "ease" of lethal violence, would likely result in a decrease in the number of fatalities. What impact the absence of guns would have on self defense, how much it would convert the existing incidences of violence into an exercise of tyranny by the physically stronger, would be hard to estimate.

To be effective, gun control would have to involve the confiscation of any and all firearms down to and including "non-firing" collectibles. Only a sweeping and draconian effort by the government to actively remove all guns from the hands of any but the military could hope to make guns such a rarity that their use -- even by criminals -- was "unthinkable."

Needless to say, individual rights would go by the board in the process.
Firstly, You would never get all guns, criminals will always get guns.
Secondly, since criminals have guns, they will be using them on innocents. Letting citizens carry guns may highten the body count of criminals for a while, but it would lower the body count of innocents. Crime would so drematically decrease though, that the body count would lower by a lot in the long run.