Author Guns  (Read 94672 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #90 on: January 13, 2013, 05:23:40 PM »
Of course the government should not limit things to only those you need.  That said, already the gov does not allow you to have a tank, or a rocket launcher.......


Nice looking Sherman:


http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2010/03/01/hemmings-find-of-the-day-1944-sherman-tank/

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #91 on: January 13, 2013, 07:49:33 PM »

Nice looking Sherman:


http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2010/03/01/hemmings-find-of-the-day-1944-sherman-tank/
I'd like to have that except it's such a drab color.

As for this rocket launcher situation, is it explicitly illegal to have one? Because I know at least two people who might be breaking the law.

When I was fourteen, I was riding my horse in one of our pastures and I saw a glint in the grass; it was a handgun. It was a Dirty Harry gun, I'm too lazy to Google that, but you know what I mean. I went home and told my folks and the sheriff came and carefully bagged it. It had been used in the commission of a robbery but the criminal had robbed a house with nobody in it, so it hadn't been fired or anything.

Nevertheless, it was rather exciting.

I'm terrified of guns.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #92 on: January 14, 2013, 12:52:21 AM »
Why I want a gun, you ask? Well, I have been around guns all my life. I suppose that has something to do with it. I was a hunter for many years. When I first hunted it was to provide food for my family... my father was not a good provider. I grew up in a "gun society", the easy rider rifle rack was more common than flies at a fish gut barrel and very little gun violence... none actually. Ok, so why now? Well I still like guns, the power they convey, and plinking targets is fun, at least to me.
Do I need a large capacity magazine? I suppose not, but that being said, it isn't the number of bullets that cause a tragedy. I can use speed loaders, multiple magazines or several guns to achieve a level of malicious carnage if that is my goal. But for a vast majority that is never the goal, even the guys that measure their peen size by the number of bullets they own.
I have little problem with gun regulation. I do think there needs to be some fine tuning of the second amendment. However asking why someone wants a gun, feels like you are asking, "what is wrong with you? wanting to have a fire arm? I mean I don't like them, so you must be somewhat less than."
Yeah people get killed with guns, and guns do not have any other function, other than to do considerable damage to a target.
Unlike many that post about government tyranny, I do not fear the government. I fear the desperation of crowds. Perhaps that is just as paranoid, but I am biased. I fear the day that my grocery store doesn't have food to sell. I fear the day that there is no power to heat our houses. I do not believe that day is anywhere soon to be... But if that day does come I can provide for my family both with food and security. 


Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #93 on: January 14, 2013, 01:29:11 AM »
onan, that might be the single finest post you've ever made. Well done.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #94 on: January 15, 2013, 08:42:35 PM »

Sorry, here near DC serving my NASA Overlords (as a paid shill for NASA, or PS4NASA as Mike Bara calls me) and got sick in the process.  Damn untested drugs they're using on us ...


Anyway ...


Here's an example - it happened in the last week or so in one of the bedroom communities of Atlanta.  ...

That's why some people think they need higher capacity magazines or heavier duty weapons.  I don't think, for instance, that the woman would have needed to fire so many rounds from a .44 or .45 - but then, she may not have been able to handle the recoil from such a weapon.

Anyway, a long story to say that some folks think they have a need for more firepower. And it doesn't involve any conspiracy.
That I can accept and understand and, in my own mind, put on the "pro" for what I'll term for the heck of it "gun freedom."

My question to you would be: Is it your vision of America that it be a country where the government only permits the citizens to possess those things that they 'need'? A thin gruel of a life, I'm thinking.
No, just like one doesn't "need" a car but they're still licensed and require training.  But as another poster said, we don't generally let normal citizens own tanks nor battle ships.  This is not honestly an argument I find incredibly convincing.


As for our resistance to registration, think of it as the same as the efforts of abortion rights advocates to resist any sort of regulation of abortion, including the willingness of otherwise decent people to defend infanticide in the form of partial-birth abortion. They know, as do we, that any attempt to regulate those rights we consider important (see the actions of the Michigan Legislature a few weeks ago) can, and usually is, a step onto the slippery slope of an outright ban.

That also makes some sense to me, but I would point out that abortion is INCREDIBLY regulated -- indeed, in some states, nearly regulated out of existence. 

Also, you can't separate the gun-control debate from the Second Amendment any more than you could separate the issue of a state teaching creationism as science in their schools from the First.
The reason that I wanted to separate from the 2nd A. is that I wanted to avoid a curt answer of, "'Cause it's our right."  The state/nation favoring and requiring a religion in public places, on the other hand, I think is much more clearly and blanketly banned.  I'm willing to acknowledge that my own biases may play a role in that last statement, though.




Thanks for the other replies.

Re: George Noory Sucks! - The Definitive Compendium
« Reply #95 on: January 16, 2013, 08:57:19 AM »
RJ - That caller last night was the last straw.  Actually I liked what the caller said but the fact is gun control doesn't belong on C2C.  Course the fact I disagree with George's stand doesn't help.  LOL!  But his reaction afterwards, as you noted, that was it for me.  I so miss Art, and I only listen to Geroge when he is doing a topic of interest.  But the Art Bell type topics are few and far between now.  I have no idea who that caller was last night, but thank you!  You helped me finally pull the plug on that show once and for all.


Hate to disappoint the anti-gun crowd, but good ole Art made no bones that he and Ramona were packing heat.  He said it would take the police at least 15 minutes to get to his home, too late to protect him and his wife. 


Is is it OK for him to have weapons and not me? 

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #96 on: January 16, 2013, 09:00:20 AM »
Let me raise another side, since you mention religion.  Is today's left actually a Calvinist religion with all the God parts taken out?  It certainly preaches a morality and way of conducting oneself with a seeming goal of a life in utopia.  If so, is blaming guns for the bad actions of bad people the same as blaming the devil for the bad actions of bad people?

I commend people on this forum for having a more reasoned discussion of this gun issue than we're hearing in Washington.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #97 on: January 16, 2013, 10:45:29 AM »
Let me raise another side, since you mention religion.  Is today's left actually a Calvinist religion with all the God parts taken out....

...and the State inserted in the deity's place.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #98 on: January 16, 2013, 11:46:27 AM »
Let me raise another side, since you mention religion.  Is today's left actually a Calvinist religion with all the God parts taken out?  It certainly preaches a morality and way of conducting oneself with a seeming goal of a life in utopia.  If so, is blaming guns for the bad actions of bad people the same as blaming the devil for the bad actions of bad people?

I commend people on this forum for having a more reasoned discussion of this gun issue than we're hearing in Washington.

Where do baptists lie in the politics of religion? Or Christian creationists? And can it be reasoned that although they'll say they're all 'gods' children (As will most other religions) they're responsible for more bad things than athiesm. I neither believe in god or the devil; I know that some religious people are deeply evil and that being aethiest doesn't imply a person is bad. How many people have committed dreadful crimes and then stood in court and said that 'god told me to do it'? What is the usual reaction? That the person is delusional/insane? Why? Because he/she is trying excuse his/her dreadful crimes on a diety? Or because he/she believes in a diety in the first place and worthy of derision? Bit of a dichotomy considering that many swear an oath on the bible in the same court.. Leaders through history have used god as their inspiration before declaring war. Military leaders do the same befoore going into battle...Delusional or using an excuse for their imminent actions?

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #99 on: January 16, 2013, 12:57:39 PM »
All of that is true.  It's the same thing - blaming something besides oneself for bad conduct.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #100 on: January 16, 2013, 01:16:39 PM »
I may be cutting into the middle of the discussion, but I just saw the news flash across the News Channel that Obama just signed in the gun control laws through 23 Executive Orders.  I hope I am NOT reading that correctly.

First, the use of an Executive Order in this matter is an abuse of the powers of the Executive Office.  That is not a comment against the president, I would view it so in the case of anyone who did that.

We have a three-party government, and that should have been used for the gun control issue.  Instead, we have a ceremonious signing of the opinion without the debate our country was founded on.  I know this is not the first time that Executive Orders have been used by this White House questionably, but to me these were not such fundamental rights of our country.  Gun control and the right to bear arms is under the Second Amendment is.   To have our constitutional right impeded and stripped by the White House with a single stroke of a pen is a smirking of our constitutional rights and the respect they deserve. 

I am not a gun owner, but I am an extremely strong advocate for the law and especially the Constitutional law.  I think the law is being trampled on and appropriate inquiries and actions taken.  No, I am not suggesting anything violent, but there are ways through the vote, court, peaceable demonstrations, letter writing and so forth.  As George would state, this post is just my "gut reaction" to what I read run across the screen.  I will need to do further research and contemplation as to what I will do as a private citizen. 

If what I read was untrue, well, you just got my thoughts on our rights.  Get on it Coast, the use of the Excecutive Order to dilute and impede our Constituional rights may have been explored or touched upon.  I think it needs to be reported on again and openly, truly and honestly without fright.  However, even writing about it reasonably, I must admit, is a scary and frigtening topic.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #101 on: January 16, 2013, 01:57:28 PM »
We had the sound bite on our news about an hour ago...The three things I heard being said were as follows: 1) Hundred round magazines (I'm not sure if they'll be banned or some restriction)--Who would possibly need a hundred round magazine? 2) Assault weapons banned (I'm quoting-I know the argument about what an 'assault weapon' is) 3) stricter background checks (maybe psychological? Makes sense)..I don't see how any of that can be argued against, unless someone insists every nutjob should have access to guns and enough rounds to begin a small war? It's a start anyway.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #102 on: January 16, 2013, 02:11:16 PM »
.I don't see how any of that can be argued against, unless someone insists every nutjob should have access to guns and enough rounds to begin a small war? It's a start anyway.
   


haha good straw man.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #103 on: January 16, 2013, 02:51:19 PM »
   haha good straw man.

Go on...explain? Or are you of the opinion that no-one is too insane, no amount of rounds is too many and no ability to mow bystanders down can be made too difficult; because to do so would be 'against your rights'? What about the right not to get killed? Or is 11-12000 murdered per year (and rising) not enough? Should it be nearer 15 000? 40 000? Should RPG's and landmines be made publically available?

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #104 on: January 17, 2013, 08:24:16 PM »
".... the right of the people to keep and bear nuclear weapons shall not be infringed"

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #105 on: January 18, 2013, 11:45:07 PM »
The 2nd Amendment is about militias.  Are you a member of one?

Also, the executive orders ask Congress to vote, how the hell is that an abuse of power?  Did you actually read them or just go by the Fox News lies about them?  Read them, they are not an abuse or offensive.  Jeez people, facts. Try them.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #106 on: January 18, 2013, 11:48:10 PM »
Here are the facts, how the hel is this an abuse of power?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/obama-23-executive-orders-actions-gun-control.html

The actions fall into three groups, none of which are an abuse or are offensive:


    direct federal law enforcement to trace all guns taken in federal custody in the course of a criminal investigation
    direct the Department of Justice to ensure that all applicable information from federal agencies is made available for background checks
    and direct the Department of Health to "conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it."

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #107 on: January 19, 2013, 01:51:37 AM »
The 2nd Amendment is about militias.  Are you a member of one?...

97th Congress
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE

FEBRUARY 1982

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. " (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights. )

"The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun. " (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. )

"The advantage of being armed... the Americans possess over the people of all other nations... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26. )

"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. " (Second Amendment to the Constitution. )

If one believes the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. To ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. Commentators contend instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia... to a free state" means that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that Congress has established the present National Guard under its power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the 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.: " In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense".

The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1803 published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subject "of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law" with a citation to the Second Amendment, "And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government. " William Rawle's "View of the Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment: "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. " The Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress show that both Tucker and Rawle were friends of, and corresponded with, Thomas Jefferson. Their views are those of contemporaries of Jefferson, Madison and others. A few years later, Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" considered the right to keep and bear arms as "the palladium of the liberties of the republic", which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow it should it come to pass.

Subsequent legislation in the second Congress likewise supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the 20th century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.

If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying — that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.

James Madison's drafts, his handwritten outlines of speeches upon the Bill of Rights, and discussions of the second amendment by early scholars who were personal friends of Madison, Jefferson, and Washington and wrote while these still lived. What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.

In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete picture, we also invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition of freedoms to submit their views. The statements of two associations who replied are reproduced here following the report of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee also invited statements by Messrs. Halbrook and Hardy, and by the National Rifle Association, whose statements likewise follow our report.

I would invite anyone to read the complete report, to search for it. Complete references can also be found for an indepth study of the subject. For my bias, i agree with the excerpts i've posted. In fairness, most of those i've heard express opinion in favor of it, don't have a clue. Same for those that oppose it. If you want to be rid of the second amendment.... work to repeal it.... stop doing end runs around it. if you support it, please do a
bit of study. it will help you understand.

as for thinking that keeping weapons would battle against our government or military, think again. the most your arms will do, with a little luck, is aid you in getting to higher levels of Guerrilla warfare. if you don't really know what that is you should look it up. Guerrilla warfare involves a whole set of skills that would advance
what you can't do with your AK.

I think we are damned lucky to have a sitting president and supreme court that still declares that americans have the right as individuals to keep and bear arms.


do i think i should be able to keep an equal level of lethal force available to me.... damn straight. from automatic weapons to nuclear devices. do i think it would be wise to allow that....nope. then again, i don't need to have those.... just know where to get them and how to use them. however, i do not expect that to be a worry anytime soon.


just my thoughts. hope they have been of benefit.
  8)

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #108 on: January 19, 2013, 01:52:52 AM »
The 2nd Amendment is about militias.  Are you a member of one?...

Actually, yes. 

 
The Second Amendment is not the mysterious indecipherable string of words that the Media and the rest of the people that see guns as an obsticle to their dreams of a one-world government (with them in charge) say it is.  It's not some stand alone sentence that only the Libs and their judges are able to interpret for us.  The Founding Fathers have a fairly large body of writings discussing the Second Amendment where they made the importance of not disarming the citizens - and why - very clear.
 

And most of us agree with them and consider them wiser than the current crop of politicians.

 
Many of these writings state outright that 'The Militia' was the entire population.  You talk about facts and reading - you may want to apply that advice to this.
 
 
... Also, the executive orders ask Congress to vote, how the hell is that an abuse of power?  Did you actually read them or just go by the Fox News lies about them?  Read them, they are not an abuse or offensive.  Jeez people, facts. Try them.


Given Obama's history of of arbitrarily taking actions outide the Constitution, his unwillingness to work with Congress - whether controlled by the R's or even when it was controlled by his own party - his dishonesty, the corrupt and highhanded Chicago tactics he favors, the burden of proof is going to be on him from now on that anything he plans is going to be done within the Constitution.  He has already proven he is not to be trusted.  We don't have to look any further than 'Fast and Furious' or Benghazi or all these extra-Constitutional 'czars' or how Obamacare was crammed down our throats to see that.
 

So when he sends his spokesman out to tell us he is going to issue Executive Orders involving gun laws instead of going through the legislative process, of course people are going to assume the worst.  Why wouldn't they?

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #109 on: January 19, 2013, 03:35:26 AM »
Oh, really? 

First, a Congressional report is not binding law about anything, a law is.  They have never passed a law that says that as the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the Constitution means.  The most conservative Supreme Court is the history of the United States (e.g. this may eventually even go away when the court actually represents reality) said in Heller in 2008 that your right to guns is limited in all kinds of ways: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The Supreme Court held:[43]

    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

        (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

        (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

        (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

        (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

        (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

        (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

    (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

    (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.


Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #110 on: January 19, 2013, 03:50:36 AM »
So if it so obviously clear that the militia requirement is simple bullshit, as you think it is, why did the Supreme Court, the most conservative Supreme Court ever, have to rule that militia was there but the right was not limited to militia?

Of course, because legal scholars mostly agree that the NRA position on the 2nd amendment is bullshit.  It was essentially made up and then codified by conservative judges, here is the argument, see if you buy it.  I also ask as you read this, what other clauses odf the Constitution shall we just ignore and do you really think it is a good idea that we do that?

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/22/opinion/oe-baron22

Here is the real academic debate, I am sure you can find a way to ignore the fact there is a debate in legal circles: http://www.saf.org/journal/15/LegalScholarship2003.htm

Examples:

Duke Law Journal

Michael Steven Green, The Paradox of Auxiliary Rights: The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Volume 52, No. 1, October 2002, pp. 113-178. Argues that Locke’s theory of the social contract, which was widely accepted by the Founders, generates paradoxical conclusions concerning the government’s authority over civil disobedients. Because of this Lockean paradox, auxiliary constitutional rights (including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms), whose purpose is to protect civil disobedience, are likewise paradoxical. Supporters of these rights are anarchistic and their critics are authoritarian. In the end, as long as we continue to accept the Founders’ Lockean view that government authority is limited by reserved moral rights, we will never be able to reject or accept auxiliary constitutional rights.

I have intentionally chosen a year prior to Heller, but as you can see the reading of the 2nd Amendment is disputable, and is disputed by many legal scholars.  The right may exist, but it may not.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #111 on: January 19, 2013, 03:57:34 AM »
Finally, the reading proposed by Scalia and the conservative court in Heller is inconsistent with Scalia's own jurisprudence.  Scalia generally states the Founders intended what was present at the time, thus he would normally argue the firepower allowed is equivalent to a musket, not a .223 caliber weapon.

Finally, back to Heller, where the court explicitly allows limitation to the right it found: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgmentof the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most usefulin military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be aseffective as militias in the 18th century, would requiresophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
—————— 26We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
56 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and theprotected ri


Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #112 on: January 19, 2013, 03:59:02 AM »
So the most conservative Supreme Court in history found a way to ignore the militia clause (for now at least) but also explicitly stated background checks and limitations on types of weapons ARE ALLOWED.

If I ever giver a shit on this board again, next time we can discuss whether the modern 2nd Amendment even has these all important commas in the places the Founders actually put them, believe it or not that is in dispute so this entire argument could be based on an artifact.  And what is it again about this sacrosanct document?  Folks ignore clauses when they fgeel like it, folks act as if the document is perfect when we actually do not even know important things like the exact draft punctuation.

Finally, I used to live in the Bradywine 100 in Delaware.  Why was it called that?  It was the area where the government would raise 100 armed men to join in the revolution, this is what the founders thought of when they thought of men and arms.  The idea of a professional military was not conceived.  So, to be consistent, we would at least need a draft and require you to bring your guns to the Army.  Since we do not do that, the entire idea that militia means  today what it meant then is just silly.

My point is not that we should take anyone's arms, the point is the stuff being talked about for background checks and gun limits is Constitutional even under Heller.  Go read the decision, not the NRA tripe lying to you about it's meaning.




Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #113 on: January 19, 2013, 04:17:53 AM »
 

Given Obama's history of of arbitrarily taking actions outide the Constitution, his unwillingness to work with Congress - whether controlled by the R's or even when it was controlled by his own party - his dishonesty, the corrupt and highhanded Chicago tactics he favors, the burden of proof is going to be on him from now on that anything he plans is going to be done within the Constitution.  He has already proven he is not to be trusted.  We don't have to look any further than 'Fast and Furious' or Benghazi or all these extra-Constitutional 'czars' or how Obamacare was crammed down our throats to see that.
 

So when he sends his spokesman out to tell us he is going to issue Executive Orders involving gun laws instead of going through the legislative process, of course people are going to assume the worst.  Why wouldn't they?

And thi statement is just laughable.  Hilarious even.  Remember George Bush taking us to war by creating fear of uranium cake in Africa?  Completely debunked and the CIA knew it was  a lie at the time.  George Bush wars were completely off the books, and never in a budget.  Rumsfeld famously stated that the war in Iraq would be at no cost as we would take Iraqi oil to pay for it, how did that work out?

And Dick Cheney, the one you guys worship, held the position that deficits do not matter: http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm

So, lets get over the fact that Obama is some kind of dictator when the Republicans did exactly the same things., or worse.

Finally, do you think the founders planned for Gerry-mandered Congressional Districts?  The republicans hold only the House, but lost the vote for House seats by 1.2@ points to Dems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012

If you want to hang your hat on the Constitution, lets talk about how the Founders would think about Districts created specifically to skew the number of Representatives from each District toward one party.  That is stealing the votes of the American people and that should be the Constitutional crisis we are discussing now.

No offense, but no, you don't have the facts right, not even close.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #114 on: January 19, 2013, 04:24:02 AM »
So the most conservative Supreme Court in history found a way to ignore the militia clause (for now at least)...

 
First off, any Court that includes Kagen, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg isn't 'the most Conservative' anything.  Add Kennedy to that bunch as the swing vote, and it becomes 'Moderate' at best.  Add in John Roberts and his asinine vote on Obamacare, and the court is anything but Conservative.
 
It's just like the Libs to see a Conservative or two and panic.  For example Fox news features some Conservatives to balance out the Libs and suddenly it's beyond the pale, and anyone watching it is to be publicly shamed.  Here we have Conservaties Alioto, Thomas and Scalia, and it 'The Most Conservative Court Ever'. 
 
 
Second, the Second Amentdment means the following:  'Guarding against tyranny is among the reasons the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'.  That's what the meaning of it is, regardless of Lib sophistry.  A citizen militia was so important the Founders mentioned it in the document itself, then explained it many times in many places before and afterward.  If someone is looking at it honestly, it's pretty hard to miss.
 
Most of the gun laws we already have are un-Constitutional, regardless of what any court says.
 
I've alway been amazed that the same people who are able to read so much into the First Amendment regarding Free Speech somehow just can't seem to grasp this one.   The Founders were sure right about needing to be ever vigilant.  Too bad we haven't been.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #115 on: January 19, 2013, 04:31:52 AM »
And thi statement is just laughable.  Hilarious even.  Remember George Bush taking us to war by creating fear of uranium cake in Africa?...

Laughable?  Reasons why someone might not be too eager to trust Obama?  I even gave you a few examples.  There are plenty more.
 
Your response?  To talk about George Bush and Dick Cheney.  Like that's a reason we should trust the current guy?  Who has already shown us that we shouldn't?  Really?

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #116 on: January 19, 2013, 04:51:36 AM »

 
First off, any Court that includes Kagen, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg isn't 'the most Conservative' anything.  Add Kennedy to that bunch as the swing vote, and it becomes 'Moderate' at best.  Add in John Roberts and his asinine vote on Obamacare, and the court is anything but Conservative.
 

WRONG!  Try actually using facts, not your biased perception.

 http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/supreme-court-may-be-most-conservative-in-modern-history/

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/05/12/ranking-the-politics-of-supreme-court-justices

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/supreme-court-roberts-obamacare-charts

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #117 on: January 19, 2013, 04:52:33 AM »

Laughable?  Reasons why someone might not be too eager to trust Obama?  I even gave you a few examples.  There are plenty more.
 
Your response?  To talk about George Bush and Dick Cheney.  Like that's a reason we should trust the current guy?  Who has already shown us that we shouldn't?  Really?
Laughable.  You gave no examples, you spewed bias as called it factual, big difference.

Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #118 on: January 19, 2013, 04:58:20 AM »

 
 

Given Obama's history of of arbitrarily taking actions outide the Constitution, his unwillingness to work with Congress - whether controlled by the R's or even when it was controlled by his own party - his dishonesty, the corrupt and highhanded Chicago tactics he favors, the burden of proof is going to be on him from now on that anything he plans is going to be done within the Constitution.  He has already proven he is not to be trusted.  We don't have to look any further than 'Fast and Furious' or Benghazi or all these extra-Constitutional 'czars' or how Obamacare was crammed down our throats to see that.
 

So when he sends his spokesman out to tell us he is going to issue Executive Orders involving gun laws instead of going through the legislative process, of course people are going to assume the worst.  Why wouldn't they?

"Given Obama's history of of arbitrarily taking actions outide the Constitution" - provide concrete examples

"his unwillingness to work with Congress" LOL!   Congress is trying to use the debt ceiling against the Pres when they are the ones who instituted the spending.  McConnell stated how primary job was not about representing the people, it was to makle Obama a one term Pres.  Come on.

"So when he sends his spokesman out to tell us he is going to issue Executive Orders involving gun laws instead of going through the legislative process, of course people are going to assume the worst.  Why wouldn't they?"

Did you actually read what he did?  Nothing even close to a constitutional crisis, and less than most Presidents do daily, stuff like "do a study" and "appoint a Director" creates a Constitutional crisis?  Did you even read the facts?


Re: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
« Reply #119 on: January 19, 2013, 05:24:16 AM »
... "So when he sends his spokesman out to tell us he is going to issue Executive Orders involving gun laws instead of going through the legislative process, of course people are going to assume the worst.  Why wouldn't they?"

Did you actually read what he did?  Nothing even close to a constitutional crisis, and less than most Presidents do daily, stuff like "do a study" and "appoint a Director" creates a Constitutional crisis?  Did you even read the facts?

That is why I specifically said people weren't trusting him about these Executive Orders BEFORE they came out.  All the debate back and forth was BEFORE they were issued.  Now that they are out, we don't have to speculate and guard against what might be in them.  For now.   Like I said, he's earned the mistrust.
 
But it's a bit specious to say to the people that were concerned about what this guy might do BEFORE he did it, 'didn't you read it?' AFTER it came out.  Nice try though.