Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 291

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #121

    Default Re: Gun Control

    I said 'basically no dispute'. Of course, we can't rely on you not to make a strawman with every post.
    Oh I see , so when you say there is basically no dispute you actually mean there is a dispute but you don't consider dispute to be dispute .

    Even what you posted goes against the nanny-stater interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
    Hmmmmmm....so you attribute my post to be supporting some other interpretation ? thats interesting , would that be basically another disputed position on the 2nd .

    also said by serious scholars, not long dead supreme court justices who didn't know what they were talking about when they decreed that a 17 1/2 inch shotgun had no use in war, and thus upheld a law as not infringing on militia arms that also, blatantly obvious even to idiots such as themselves, affected weapons of wars, like the BAR machinegun.
    Now that is just too funny , I wonder what the long dead people who wrote the constitutionand its amendments knew about a BAR ?
    Its also funny that you consider the supreme court who rule on such things as not being serious scholars .
    Whodathunk that the people whose job entails legal ruling covering the interpretation and implementation of a document hadn't put any serious scholastic study into the document they work with . I suppose they hadn't studied law either .
    Obviously they are just blatant idiots who have never been serious scholars

  2. #122
    Arena Senior Member Crazed Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Between the Mountain and the Sound
    Posts
    11,074
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Oh I see , so when you say there is basically no dispute you actually mean there is a dispute but you don't consider dispute to be dispute .
    If I had a dollar for every time you used a strawman, I'd be filthy rich.

    Hmmmmmm....so you attribute my post to be supporting some other interpretation ? thats interesting , would that be basically another disputed position on the 2nd .
    Ah, the classic tribesy hang-up on a single word. "Help! This one word confuses me because I'm unable to comprehend English!"
    Also, your post doesn't support some other interpretation- it supports the interpretation that the second amendment is an individual right, which agrees with what I said.

    Do you have any evidence of a wide dispute about the second amendment amoung constitutional scholars?

    As it happens, there is basically no dispute amoung serious constitutional scholars. It's just the modern nanny-staters don't like it.
    Try to understand; amoung scholars studying the constitution, there is broad consensus that the second amendment amounts to an individual right. Do you disagree with the idea of a second amendment as an individual right? Think a bit before answering; I'm not asking for your opinion on other's views of it, but what you think. That is, I'm trying to get you to actually debate the idea, and not pollute the thread with pathetic complaints of semantics.

    Its also funny that you consider the supreme court who rule on such things as not being serious scholars .
    Whodathunk that the people whose job entails legal ruling covering the interpretation and implementation of a document hadn't put any serious scholastic study into the document they work with .
    You're ignoring the substance, and messing up the frivolities. Re-read the ruling you posted and what I posted and try and think a bit about how they screwed the ruling up. Also, did I argue there was no dispute amoung scholars of the 1930s?

    CR
    Ja Mata, Tosa.

    The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder

  3. #123

    Default Re: Gun Control

    If I had a dollar for every time you used a strawman, I'd be filthy rich.
    No straw man there Rabbit , you set up a position that doesn't have any legs .
    Do you have any evidence of a wide dispute about the second amendment amoung constitutional scholars?
    Yes , you posted it
    Try to understand; amoung scholars studying the constitution, there is broad consensus that the second amendment amounts to an individual right.
    A broad consensus , that doesn't mean no dispute does it , plus it had to be disputed for them to even consider trying to reach an agreement on what it meant .

    "Help! This one word confuses me because I'm unable to comprehend English!"
    So what English do you not understand Rabbit ?
    I'm trying to get you to actually debate the idea, and not pollute the thread with pathetic complaints of semantics.
    Then think about what you write Rabbit , since you wish to focus on the precise meaning of the wording of the badly worded amendment then you should be able to understand the importance for clear word usage .

    Do you disagree with the idea of a second amendment as an individual right? Think a bit before answering; I'm not asking for your opinion on other's views of it, but what you think.
    My opinion , it is a badly written amendment , lacking in substance and detail , contradictory and pretty worthless really .
    Which is why some people are so fond of it .

  4. #124
    Texan Member BigTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, United States of America.
    Posts
    1,187

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Now that is just too funny , I wonder what the long dead people who wrote the constitutionand its amendments knew about a BAR ?
    Nope they probably couldn't have dreamed of this weapon when they wrote it. But you can be assured that they would have wanted people to be able to have it. The 2nd amendment is there not just to allow one to carry a firearm or to allow a militia, but to ensure the government always has a healthy fear of its people. And there's nothing like a full automatic heavy saw to do that.

    My opinion , it is a badly written amendment , lacking in substance and detail , contradictory and pretty worthless really .
    Every amendment lacks wording. Their blunt and to the point they don't dance around what they mean nor do they include creative language to explain what they mean. Their not like the EU's constitution, they are only a few pages long. That amendment doesnt even once contradict itself, and neither is it worthless. It is one of the cornerstones of a good democracy that the government fears its people, and not the other way around.


    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.
    Wine is a bit different, as I am sure even kids will like it.
    BigTex
    "Hilary Clinton is the devil"
    ~Texas proverb

  5. #125

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Oh cut it out tribes and give him a real answer. It seems like every time someone tries to debate you, you ignore their main points and go for ones that aren't even made or are insignificant.


    Do you think the 2nd amendment is an individual right or not? Yes or no?
    Last edited by scooter_the_shooter; 11-10-2006 at 01:00.
    Formerly ceasar010

  6. #126

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Do you think the 2nd amendment is an individual right or not? Yes or no?
    No , simple as that .
    It's all in the wording .

    That amendment doesnt even once contradict itself, and neither is it worthless. It is one of the cornerstones of a good democracy that the government fears its people, and not the other way around.
    Well you quoted it so you must have read it , but for you to say that definately implies that you havn't read it Tex .
    If it was blunt and to the point then you wouldn't have had people debating what the hell it actually means since it was written would you .

  7. #127
    The very model of a modern Moderator Xiahou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in the cloud.
    Posts
    9,007

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
    People regularly debate the meaning of the above phrase- yet it is worded quite clearly.

    Just because someone is willing to say it means something other than what it says doesn't automatically mean that it's unclear. That's just sloppy logic.
    "Don't believe everything you read online."
    -Abraham Lincoln

  8. #128

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Tribesman



    If it was blunt and to the point then you wouldn't have had people debating what the hell it actually means since it was written would you .


    Not necessarily...most anti gun organizations don't care what the 2nd amendment says, they just want to get rid of guns. And trying to wiggle a different meaning out of the 2nd amendment is one way for them to achieve their goals.


    You could say that they care about the amendment sense they go through all the trouble of trying to change the meaning.


    But they really don't they are not trying to uphold the constitution they are just trying to get rid of the guns. (it's just a tactic, it could say that "every single american citizen may have any type of firearm" and they would still try to ban them.)




    I am not trying to be insulting but I have never seen organizations make as many our right lies as the anti gun organizations.
    Formerly ceasar010

  9. #129
    Texan Member BigTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, United States of America.
    Posts
    1,187

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Well you quoted it so you must have read it , but for you to say that definately implies that you havn't read it Tex .
    If it was blunt and to the point then you wouldn't have had people debating what the hell it actually means since it was written would you .
    People will debate the meaning of anything. The amendment is about as clear as you can get. Saying someone debates the meaning doesnt distract from the fact that it is clear and blunt. The supreme court not once has said it means anything different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou
    Just because someone is willing to say it means something other than what it says doesn't automatically mean that it's unclear. That's just sloppy logic.
    Quoted for the truth.

    The fact that your saying the 2nd amendment contradicts itself though does imply you havent read it. Please feel free to point out anywere in that amendment were it contradicts your right to bear arms or the states right to form a militia.

    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.
    Also very simple sentence construction. The 2 subjects, your right to privately own firearms and the states right to protect itself with a militia, will not be infringed upon.
    Wine is a bit different, as I am sure even kids will like it.
    BigTex
    "Hilary Clinton is the devil"
    ~Texas proverb

  10. #130

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Just because someone is willing to say it means something other than what it says doesn't automatically mean that it's unclear. That's just sloppy logic.
    So can you explain Tex's assertion , he thinks that the amendment is to make the government fear the people , a cornerstone of his theory of democracy is the threat of armed rebellion against the government .
    Now if the government was in fear of an insurrection by armed people , what provision does the constitution contain to deal with exactly that issue ?
    Some people wish to take one tiny element of a small portion of a document and claim implicitly that it has only one meaning , ignoring that it must be taken together with all provisions relating to it in the document .

  11. #131

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Too slow posting .....
    Also very simple sentence construction. The 2 subjects, your right to privately own firearms and the states right to protect itself with a militia, will not be infringed upon.
    and you cannot see the contradiction

  12. #132
    Jillian & Allison's Daddy Senior Member Don Corleone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    7,588

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Guys, why are you even bothering to try? I like Tribesman. He's a witty fellow. He's basically decent, doesn't believe in boiling babies for lye or anything of that sort. But in the 2 1/2 years I've been on this board, he's never, not once, even hinted that he's learned a single wit from somebody that he's disagreed with.

    He's an idealogue of the highest order. Nice guy, sure, but you're arguing with a brick wall. He is always right in his mind, because he has to be. He has all the answers, he only shows up here to post to inform us all of his brilliance. Doesn't matter whether he's ever been to a country, he knows what laws they need and he can tell you the perfect policy.

    This might sound like a personal attack, but it's not meant as one. I just tire of the charade. It's not a dialogue when one party enters from the premise "allow me to show you why you are always wrong".
    Last edited by Don Corleone; 11-10-2006 at 02:37.
    "A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."
    Don Vito Corleone: The Godfather, Part 1.

    "Then wait for them and swear to God in heaven that if they spew that bull to you or your family again you will cave there heads in with a sledgehammer"
    Strike for the South

  13. #133
    Arena Senior Member Crazed Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Between the Mountain and the Sound
    Posts
    11,074
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Tribesman
    Yes , you posted it
    Where? Remember, the brady handgun control group aren't scholars. Also remember that 1982 is not the present.

    A broad consensus , that doesn't mean no dispute does it , plus it had to be disputed for them to even consider trying to reach an agreement on what it meant .
    I didn't say no dispute, did I? So basically you're going in some weird argument against yourself.

    My opinion , it is a badly written amendment , lacking in substance and detail , contradictory and pretty worthless really .
    Which is why some people are so fond of it .
    Your opinion, as shown in the study I posted, happens to be wrong.

    *Tim Robbins voice* Are you being...obtuse?

    So anyways, what are people's thoughts on carrying a handgun, after completing a safety class and being approved by the sheriff, in a city?

    Yea- people should be able to defend themselves?
    or Nay - It'll lead to violent shootouts between crazies!

    CR
    Ja Mata, Tosa.

    The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder

  14. #134

    Default Re: Gun Control

    I didn't say no dispute, did I
    No you said "basically" which is even worse , since that covers the core issues of the subject , which is exactly what is disputed . Nice language English isn't it , you should try it some time .
    Tell you what Rabbit , read some back issues of gun nut weekly and find out how many dispute the meaning and interpretation of the second , you yourself have previously disputed its interpretation here , as has Ceasar , so don't come out with bull about it not being disputed .


    So anyways, what are people's thoughts on carrying a handgun, after completing a safety class and being approved by the sheriff, in a city?
    Nooooooooo that is an infringement of the peoples rights under the second amendment .

    Your opinion, as shown in the study I posted, happens to be wrong.
    Really , so you maintain that it is not badly written , is not contradictory , does not lack substance and detail , and is not pretty worthless .
    Would you like to read it again .....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.
    Then perhaps you can contradict yourself by asking about permission for handgun permits and safety classes
    Then you can explain to Tex why he cannot have a fully automatic heavy SAW to keep his government in order .
    Then you can explore the stipulations in the constitution about the well regulated militia

    He's basically decent, doesn't believe in boiling babies for lye or anything of that sort.
    Too right Don , the yield is too low, boil adults instead

    [QUOTE][But in the 2 1/2 years I've been on this board, he's never, not once, even hinted that he's learned a single wit from somebody that he's disagreed with./QUOTE]
    It happens Don , you must just have missed those occasions .

  15. #135
    The very model of a modern Moderator Xiahou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in the cloud.
    Posts
    9,007

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
    So anyways, what are people's thoughts on carrying a handgun, after completing a safety class and being approved by the sheriff, in a city?

    Yea- people should be able to defend themselves?
    or Nay - It'll lead to violent shootouts between crazies!

    CR
    In PA, there's no laws forbidding open carry of handguns anywhere except in the city of Philadelphia- permit or no. A permit allows you to carry concealed almost anywhere (court rooms, post offices, ect are prohibited). And, the only requirement to get a permit is being able to fill out an application properly and pass an instant background check. I got mine in less than 30minutes- great stuff.
    "Don't believe everything you read online."
    -Abraham Lincoln

  16. #136
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Tribesman
    Then you can explain to Tex why he cannot have a fully automatic heavy SAW to keep his government in order .
    Probably because the fully automatic heavy SAW does not exist. The SAW stands for Squad Automatic Weapon which fires a 5.56mm, and is also classifed as a Light Machine Gun.

    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m249.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by Link
    The Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) is an air-cooled, belt-fed, gas-operated automatic weapon that fires from the open-bolt position. It has a regulator for selecting either normal (750 rounds per minute [rpm)) or maximum (1,000 rpm) rate of fire. The maximum rate of fire is authorized only if the weapon's firing rate slows under adverse conditions. Although the M249 AR is primarily used as an automatic rifle, it is also used as a light machine gun. It can be fired from the shoulder, hip, or underarm position; or from the bipod-steadied position. When employed as a machine gun, it has a tripod with a T&E mechanism and a spare barrel; however, barrels must not be interchanged with those from other M249s unless the headspace has been set for that weapon by direct support personnel.
    But you are most likely attempting to refer to the Federal law that bans automatic weapons manufactured after 1968 from being purchased in the United States. One can however buy and own a BAR if one is willing to pay the $200 dollar transfer of license fee.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  17. #137

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
    So anyways, what are people's thoughts on carrying a handgun, after completing a safety class and being approved by the sheriff, in a city?

    Yea- people should be able to defend themselves?
    or Nay - It'll lead to violent shootouts between crazies!

    CR


    I don't like the idea. It infringes on your rights.
    Formerly ceasar010

  18. #138

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
    Probably because the fully automatic heavy SAW does not exist. The SAW stands for Squad Automatic Weapon which fires a 5.56mm, and is also classifed as a Light Machine Gun.

    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m249.htm



    But you are most likely attempting to refer to the Federal law that bans automatic weapons manufactured after 1968 from being purchased in the United States. One can however buy and own a BAR if one is willing to pay the $200 dollar transfer of license fee.



    That ban happened in 1986. The gun control act of 1968 was different.
    Formerly ceasar010

  19. #139
    "'elp! I'm bein' repressed!" Senior Member Aenlic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The live music capital of the world.
    Posts
    1,583

    Default Re: Gun Control

    The 2nd Amendment is clear. "Shall not be infringed" isn't open to interpretation. Unless and until (hopefully not ever) that Amendment is changed by a new Amendment, there is no way around the language.

    I don't own a gun and I'm also so far left of what most people consider "left" that I'm nearly all the way right again. I'm a socialist and a libertarian - an anarchist in a cheap and far too easy one word designation. And yet, my position on individual liberties compels me to support the 2nd Amendment.

    You don't violate individual rights for any reason, not even if you think it'll make you safer. Oddly, many of the same people who argue vehemently for individual liberties like the 2nd Amendment don't seem intelligent enough to apply that same logic when it comes to things like The Patriot Act and the 2007 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5122). You don't trample on individual liberties just because it seems to make one safer. Bad idea.

    Luckily, there are still a few real conservatives out there, like former congressman Dick Armey, who feel as I do, even though I'm about as unconservative as they come. I may disagree with people like Armey on almost everything else; but I have to applaud those who have the cahones to apply their principles to all of their positions, not just when convenient.
    "Dee dee dee!" - Annoymous (the "differently challenged" and much funnier twin of Anonymous)

  20. #140
    Arena Senior Member Crazed Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Between the Mountain and the Sound
    Posts
    11,074
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Tribesman
    No you said "basically" which is even worse , since that covers the core issues of the subject , which is exactly what is disputed . Nice language English isn't it , you should try it some time .
    Tell you what Rabbit , read some back issues of gun nut weekly and find out how many dispute the meaning and interpretation of the second , you yourself have previously disputed its interpretation here , as has Ceasar , so don't come out with bull about it not being disputed .
    I really do wish I'd get a buck for every strawman of yours. Try reading what I said, and pay attention to the part about serious scholar (and what the actual subject it) you know, as in not Handgun Control Inc or Rosie O Donnell. You crack me up, tribesy. I'm talking about constitutional scholars, not the average soccer mom, and you know it (I hope, at least, though perhaps reading 'scholars' doesn't impart the idea of scholars to you brain). Simple enough? I think you'll help yourself get a leg up in life if you can understand the difference between:
    "There is no dispute by anyone on this subject" - Which is what you are arguing against, in classic strawman fashion, and
    "There is basically no dispute by serious scholars".

    Really , so you maintain that it is not badly written , is not contradictory , does not lack substance and detail , and is not pretty worthless .
    Would you like to read it again .....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.
    Then perhaps you can contradict yourself by asking about permission for handgun permits and safety classes
    Then you can explain to Tex why he cannot have a fully automatic heavy SAW to keep his government in order .
    Then you can explore the stipulations in the constitution about the well regulated militia
    Its very clear, for those not being purposely obtuse about it. Once again, try gaining a bit of knowledge and read the link I posted:
    http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

    I don't like the idea. It infringes on your rights.
    I agree, but it is better than nothing. Ideally, more states would move to Vermont style laws, but that won't happen in one big jump.

    CR
    Ja Mata, Tosa.

    The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder

  21. #141
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by ceasar010
    That ban happened in 1986. The gun control act of 1968 was different.
    You might want to read again. Several sources cite both the 1934 "Machine Gun" act and the 1968 legislation together. The 1986 ban I believe was to place even more restrictions that were ommitted from the previous legislation.

    Here is one examble of how some are reading the act, note that the class 3 SOT is mentioned which as far as I understand is the only legal way to own a machine gun - hince the comment about the $200 license fee.

    There are two kinds of firearms under federal law, title 1 firearms and title 2. Title 1 firearms are long guns (rifles and shotguns), handguns, silencers, and firearm frames or receivers. Most NFA weapons are also title 1 firearms. Title 2 weapons are NFA weapons. Title 2 of the 1968 Gun Control Act is the National Firearms Act (codified at 26 U.S.C. sec. 5801 et seq.), hence NFA. Title 1 is generally referred to as the Gun Control Act of 1968, (18 U.S.C. sec. 921 et seq.). NFA weapons are also sometimes called class 3 weapons, because a class 3 SOT (special occupational taxpayer) is needed to deal in NFA weapons.

    NFA weapons include categories such as machine guns, sound suppressors, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, destructive devices and items classified as "any other weapons". NFA weapons do not include the semi-automatic rifles and shotguns which have been since at least 1994 misclassified by many in Congress, government agencies, and the media as “assault weapons.”

    Under the provisions of Federal law, anyone over the age of 21 who is not otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm may purchase and own National Firearms Act weapons which include machine guns, sound suppressors (i.e., silencers), short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, an other unusual types of weapons commonly classified as an "Any Other Weapon", and destructive devices. Tennessee law does not regulate, prohibit possession of or prohibit the purchase of NFA weapons. The applicable code section is Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1302(b)(7) which provides in relevant part:
    Last edited by Redleg; 11-10-2006 at 07:17.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  22. #142
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Aenlic
    The 2nd Amendment is clear. "Shall not be infringed" isn't open to interpretation. Unless and until (hopefully not ever) that Amendment is changed by a new Amendment, there is no way around the language.

    I don't own a gun and I'm also so far left of what most people consider "left" that I'm nearly all the way right again. I'm a socialist and a libertarian - an anarchist in a cheap and far too easy one word designation. And yet, my position on individual liberties compels me to support the 2nd Amendment.

    You don't violate individual rights for any reason, not even if you think it'll make you safer. Oddly, many of the same people who argue vehemently for individual liberties like the 2nd Amendment don't seem intelligent enough to apply that same logic when it comes to things like The Patriot Act and the 2007 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5122). You don't trample on individual liberties just because it seems to make one safer. Bad idea.

    Luckily, there are still a few real conservatives out there, like former congressman Dick Armey, who feel as I do, even though I'm about as unconservative as they come. I may disagree with people like Armey on almost everything else; but I have to applaud those who have the cahones to apply their principles to all of their positions, not just when convenient.
    The esteemed gentleman from Austin is correct.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  23. #143
    L'Etranger Senior Member Banquo's Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hunting the Snark, a long way from Tipperary...
    Posts
    5,604

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Aenlic
    The 2nd Amendment is clear. "Shall not be infringed" isn't open to interpretation. Unless and until (hopefully not ever) that Amendment is changed by a new Amendment, there is no way around the language.

    I don't own a gun and I'm also so far left of what most people consider "left" that I'm nearly all the way right again. I'm a socialist and a libertarian - an anarchist in a cheap and far too easy one word designation. And yet, my position on individual liberties compels me to support the 2nd Amendment.

    You don't violate individual rights for any reason, not even if you think it'll make you safer. Oddly, many of the same people who argue vehemently for individual liberties like the 2nd Amendment don't seem intelligent enough to apply that same logic when it comes to things like The Patriot Act and the 2007 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5122). You don't trample on individual liberties just because it seems to make one safer. Bad idea.

    Luckily, there are still a few real conservatives out there, like former congressman Dick Armey, who feel as I do, even though I'm about as unconservative as they come. I may disagree with people like Armey on almost everything else; but I have to applaud those who have the cahones to apply their principles to all of their positions, not just when convenient.


    Goodness Aenlic, you've been missed. Well said.
    "If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
    Albert Camus "Noces"

  24. #144
    "'elp! I'm bein' repressed!" Senior Member Aenlic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The live music capital of the world.
    Posts
    1,583

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Nice to see you too. Glad to see Redleg is still here too. I've just been terribly busy for the last few months (ok, I've been playing World of Warcraft out of sheer boredom and nothing much was happening here until M:TW2 came out; but "terribly busy" sounds more important). Now that M:TW2 is near release, I came back around to see how things were going.
    "Dee dee dee!" - Annoymous (the "differently challenged" and much funnier twin of Anonymous)

  25. #145

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Probably because the fully automatic heavy SAW does not exist.
    Perhaps you had better tell Tex Redleg , since he mentioned it .

    I think you'll help yourself get a leg up in life if you can understand the difference between:
    "There is no dispute by anyone on this subject" - Which is what you are arguing against, in classic strawman fashion, and
    "There is basically no dispute by serious scholars".
    oh dear Rabbit , and you talk about strawmen is English not your strong suit ?

    The core issue that is disputed (thats basically if you cannot understand) by serious constitutional scholars is the meaning and implementation of the second . It is disputed and has been for a loooooooong time because it is (a)badly worded , (b) not implemented .

    Aelenic writes .....The 2nd Amendment is clear. "Shall not be infringed" isn't open to interpretation.
    Yep so it is badly worded . Since you have regulations infringing upon it at a federal , state and local level , and have had since the beginning .
    That bad wording , lack of substance and detail makes it contradictory and pretty worthless .

    Nice link BTW rabbit , lots of nice dispute going on there , are those serious scholars , have you shot yourself in the foot ?

  26. #146
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Tribesman
    Aelenic writes .....The 2nd Amendment is clear. "Shall not be infringed" isn't open to interpretation.
    Yep so it is badly worded . Since you have regulations infringing upon it at a federal , state and local level , and have had since the beginning .
    That bad wording , lack of substance and detail makes it contradictory and pretty worthless .
    You are incorrect in that approach. The amendment has stood the test of time, just as the constitution has.

    Adjustments have been made based upon the wording of the 2nd Amendment. For instance the registration of weapons have been found to be consistent with the first part of the amendment and not in violation of the 2nd part of the sentence structure. The government has rightly determined that certain types of weapons are for military purposes and the citizens do not have the right to own them, as one can argue successful given the first part of the amendment.

    I don't take issue with criticizing the amendment but to call it worthless is a contradiction to the testimony of time.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  27. #147

    Default Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
    You might want to read again. Several sources cite both the 1934 "Machine Gun" act and the 1968 legislation together. The 1986 ban I believe was to place even more restrictions that were ommitted from the previous legislation.

    Here is one examble of how some are reading the act, note that the class 3 SOT is mentioned which as far as I understand is the only legal way to own a machine gun - hince the comment about the $200 license fee.

    Huh?

    1968 seemed to be more about sale and transportation of firearms then full autos. (it mentions them only twice that I saw and doesnt seem to place new regs.)


    86 banned the import and manufacture of them after that date.(I'm surprised reagan let that through ).



    And anyway I'm done with the thread. Cause tribes is a brick wall. There is not discussion with him he just makes smartass post till' you get sick of it and leave.
    Formerly ceasar010

  28. #148

    Default AW: Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
    The government has rightly determined that certain types of weapons are for military purposes and the citizens do not have the right to own them, as one can argue successful given the first part of the amendment.
    I totally agree that military weapons don´t belong in the hands of civilians. But how does that regulation you mention fit with the first half of the 2nd amendment? If the reason for an armed population is to have a militia, why deny them the weapons that a militia would need most (bazookas, machineguns)?

    I think this shows that the militia idea is somehow outdated.

  29. #149
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: AW: Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Haudegen
    I totally agree that military weapons don´t belong in the hands of civilians. But how does that regulation you mention fit with the first half of the 2nd amendment? If the reason for an armed population is to have a militia, why deny them the weapons that a militia would need most (bazookas, machineguns)?

    I think this shows that the militia idea is somehow outdated.
    The first half of the 2nd Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." It means that the government has the ability to define what weapons are crew served and which are individual weapons. It means that the government can make definitions about how arms are classified. It means that the government gets to define how militia's are organized and maned. Militia's by definition come with what weapons they as individuals can carry and provide ammunition for.

    Now note the second half of the amendment. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.." This is where both sides get themselves stuck. They attempt to define the amendment as two seperate sentences.

    A well regulated militia allows for the government to make decisions about how militias are to be organized and equiped, in doing so under the orginial concept of a militia the people were suppose to come armed with their personal weapons. Hince because the founding fathers believed in militia's over a standing army - the people will always have a right to personal arms to defend themselves and their nation.

    Is the militia concept outdated - maybe. But to change the wording of the amendment takes the constitutional process - not simple regulation and legislation. The wording of the 2nd Amendment is such so that the government can not remove personal weapons from the citizens of the nation. It does not mean that the government can not define weapons into different catergories and then regulate ownership. For instance one can buy machine guns made prior to 1968 if they purchase the license class to own one.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  30. #150
    Standing Up For Rationality Senior Member Ronin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Lisbon,Portugal
    Posts
    4,952

    Post Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Aenlic
    The 2nd Amendment is clear. "Shall not be infringed" isn't open to interpretation. Unless and until (hopefully not ever) that Amendment is changed by a new Amendment, there is no way around the language.

    I don't own a gun and I'm also so far left of what most people consider "left" that I'm nearly all the way right again. I'm a socialist and a libertarian - an anarchist in a cheap and far too easy one word designation. And yet, my position on individual liberties compels me to support the 2nd Amendment.

    You don't violate individual rights for any reason, not even if you think it'll make you safer. Oddly, many of the same people who argue vehemently for individual liberties like the 2nd Amendment don't seem intelligent enough to apply that same logic when it comes to things like The Patriot Act and the 2007 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5122). You don't trample on individual liberties just because it seems to make one safer. Bad idea.

    Luckily, there are still a few real conservatives out there, like former congressman Dick Armey, who feel as I do, even though I'm about as unconservative as they come. I may disagree with people like Armey on almost everything else; but I have to applaud those who have the cahones to apply their principles to all of their positions, not just when convenient.
    I always find it interesting...when I see this debate from the outside not being american myself...that people always seem to like to quote one part of the second amendment of the US constitution and forget about the other part.

    this is just my read on the text....not trying to stir anything up here:

    the part that is always quoted goes like "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"...which could be taken to mean that you have the right as an american citizen to have any weapons you want...

    but why do people always leave out this part? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

    notice the words "militia" and "well regulated".....call me silly....but isn´t the modern "well regulated militia" the US army and other armed forces?

    so the second amendment (when you read all of it, and not just the "quotable" part) seems to mean that the right to bear arms is necessary, so that a well regulated militia can be formed and maintained for the security of the state......-> meaning you need guns for the army....how you get from that to "any civilian has the right to carry a gun" is a jump of logic I haven´t been able to achieve yet..... i´ll try to keep working on it....
    "If given the choice to be the shepherd or the sheep... be the wolf"
    -Josh Homme
    "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!"
    - Calvin

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO