Repeal the Second Amendment?

[typomaniac]

Some people have argued that the Second Amendment is basically obsolete. When it was originally crafted, the United States had a completely agrarian economy, and for most people firearms were essential to their livelihood.

Now that the economy has changed so radically, do we still need a Constitutional provision?

I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

[LiberalNation]

There will always be need for the second amendment. You can never tell what tomorrow will be bring and handing over your arms just on the prediction of a bright future you would never need them in wouldn't be too smart.

[Hobbit]

Government is essentially corrupt. No matter how long we hold it off, the day will come when we will either accept their chains or bleed to throw them off. Just like the man said, "From my cold, dead hands!"

[loosecannon]

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.

Hobbit do you really take seriously any claims that any of the bill of rights amendments are obsolete?

#2 will never be abolished in my lifetime.

The militia thing tho, why isn't the national guard at home to defend our own nation?

[LuvRPgrl]

WHat is happening in Iraq is absolute proof that the right to bear arms should stay in place, and for me, that includes semi automatic rifles.

[Hobbit]

Hobbit do you really take seriously any claims that any of the bill of rights amendments are obsolete?

#2 will never be abolished in my lifetime.

The militia thing tho, why isn't the national guard at home to defend our own nation?

I try not to, but because people in power do, I must.

I hope not.

They're not militia. A militia is when, say, some respected community member comes to your door and says, "Loose, grab yer gun. The commies are comin'." The National Guard is the same as any other organized military force, except that they are controlled by the state, rather than at the federal level.

[Mr. P]

There will always be need for the second amendment. You can never tell what tomorrow will be bring and handing over your arms just on the prediction of a bright future you would never need them in wouldn't be too smart.

I love to see a glimmer of intellectual activity and solid reasoning from youngsters.
Rep for you!

[loosecannon]

I try not to, but because people in power do, I must.

I hope not.

They're not militia. A militia is when, say, some respected community member comes to your door and says, "Loose, grab yer gun. The commies are comin'." The National Guard is the same as any other organized military force, except that they are controlled by the state, rather than at the federal level.

That was the militia while we were a colony and there was no domestic military, just the brits and the people.

Once we founded a federation of states the states formed their own militias under the direction of the governor. The law still holds that the federal troops can not be used to intervene in domestic law enforcement. But the national guard can. Because they are under the direction of the governors.

I don't see much difference between the second amendments provision for militias and the national guard. Do you?

And who are these people who are saying the #2 is obsolete anyway?

[loosecannon]

WHat is happening in Iraq is absolute proof that the right to bear arms should stay in place, and for me, that includes semi automatic rifles.


Do you want to elaborate on your reasoning?

[typomaniac]

Government is essentially corrupt. No matter how long we hold it off, the day will come when we will either accept their chains or bleed to throw them off. Just like the man said, "From my cold, dead hands!"Just out of curiosity, is that also how you feel about the amendment saying that the government can't force you to house its troops?

My guess would be that most people would say that the latter amendment is obsolete.

[Hobbit]

Just out of curiosity, is that also how you feel about the amendment saying that the government can't force you to house its troops?

My guess would be that most people would say that the latter amendment is obsolete.

If there's ever a war on domestic soil, it won't be obselete, and we have to always be prepared for that eventuality.

[Abbey Marie]

For something to be obsolete, there would usually have to be a new methodology or technology that is so superior, it makes using the old way absurd. I don't see a way to apply the term 'obsolescence' to an armed citizenry or housing troops.

Maybe you can explain why you think those things could be obsolete?

[typomaniac]

For something to be obsolete, there would usually have to be a new methodology or technology that is so superior, it makes using the old way absurd. I don't see a way to apply the term 'obsolescence' to an armed citizenry or housing troops.

Maybe you can explain why you think those things could be obsolete?IMO, the concept of universal firearm ownership is obsolete in densely populated areas, because it's a threat to public safety. (I'll save the discussion of quartering soldiers for another thread if there's interest; I'd rather not get into a detour about it here.)

Very few people claim that government licensing of drivers and registration of their cars is an infringement of some basic right. In fact, the practice has improved public safety by cutting down on the rate of accidents.

[Abbey Marie]

IMO, the concept of universal firearm ownership is obsolete in densely populated areas, because it's a threat to public safety.

Very few people claim that government licensing of drivers and registration of their cars is an infringement of some basic right. In fact, the practice has improved public safety by cutting down on the rate of accidents.

Okay. Well, unsafe and obsolete are two very different concepts. The horse and buggy became obsolete because cars, trains and buses do the job exponentially better in almost every situation given the topography of our nation.

Speaking of cars, we do license and register guns, no? I do not see the point of your comparison there.

[Mr. P]

IMO, the concept of universal firearm ownership is obsolete in densely populated areas, because it's a threat to public safety. (I'll save the discussion of quartering soldiers for another thread if there's interest; I'd rather not get into a detour about it here.)

Very few people claim that government licensing of drivers and registration of their cars is an infringement of some basic right. In fact, the practice has improved public safety by cutting down on the rate of accidents.

First, 'Universal firearm ownership' doesn't exist.
Second, if 'obsolete in densely populated areas' why not rural areas?
Third, ownership of a firearm is not a threat.
Forth, driving is not a Constitutional issue.

[Pale Rider]

I'd like to know why the votes have been made private. I'd like to know who the two are so far that voted yes, and their reasoning behing it.

[manu1959]

give up your right to an abortion and i will give up my right to a gun....

[Mr. P]

I'd like to know why the votes have been made private. I'd like to know who the two are so far that voted yes, and their reasoning behing it.
I was wondering the same..Thread poster is 1 but who is 2?

[Pale Rider]

give up your right to an abortion and i will give up my right to a gun....

Never.

[Gunny]

The incident at VT is a PERFECT example of a law-abiding, disarmed pulic vs a predatory criminal.

[glockmail]

....

The militia thing tho, why isn't the national guard at home to defend our own nation? Because President Bush has chosen to fight the enemy on his turf instead of waiting for them to come here. :pee:

[5stringJeff]

Frankly, there are no good reasons to disarm people, and plenty of bad reasons to disarm people. Hobbit hit the nail on the head, bringing government into the picture; the people arm themselves so that they can fight back against a corrupt government. Gunny was also right on in saying that the VT tragedy is exactly what happens when your public cannot arm themselves: one person can kill dozens before the government (i.e. police) can respond.

[loosecannon]

Because President Bush has chosen to fight the enemy on his turf instead of waiting for them to come here. :pee:

Iraq wasn't our enemy. And Bush was wrong. We need that guard here for our own problems.

[glockmail]

Iraq wasn't our enemy. And Bush was wrong. We need that guard here for our own problems. There is ample evidence that Saddam was in bed with bin Laden. Saddam also tried to assasinate a US ex-President. Saddam was threatening our allies as well as us.

Saddam was also the biggest, baddest, loudest bully among our enimies in the ME. If you've ever been in a gang fight, you should know that's the one you go for.

[typomaniac]

Okay. Well, unsafe and obsolete are two very different concepts. The horse and buggy became obsolete because cars, trains and buses do the job exponentially better in almost every situation given the topography of our nation.

Speaking of cars, we do license and register guns, no? I do not see the point of your comparison there.A couple of points. First, we don't license gun users the way we license drivers. My second point is that nowadays, it's become extremely difficult to keep firearm laws up-to-date, because you have so many people screaming "Second Amendment!" for no real reason. Unfortunately, the NRA has pretty much sold itself out to manufacturers of "people-punching" automatics, whose only concern is to sell as many of these things as they can.

Bottom line, one can make a good case that the Second Amendment today is doing the US more harm than good.

[typomaniac]

I'd like to know why the votes have been made private. I'd like to know who the two are so far that voted yes, and their reasoning behing it.Not as sinister as you think. Anonymous votes are the default option when you create a poll. To be honest, I didn't expect that anyone would care.

[Gunny]

A couple of points. First, we don't license gun users the way we license drivers. My second point is that nowadays, it's become extremely difficult to keep firearm laws up-to-date, because you have so many people screaming "Second Amendment!" for no real reason. Unfortunately, the NRA has pretty much sold itself out to manufacturers of "people-punching" automatics, whose only concern is to sell as many of these things as they can.

Bottom line, one can make a good case that the Second Amendment today is doing the US more harm than good.

Make your case.

[Mr. P]

Iraq wasn't our enemy. And Bush was wrong. We need that guard here for our own problems.

We have plenty of guard here.

[loosecannon]

There is ample evidence that Saddam was in bed with bin Laden.

Not according to anybody who knows what they are talking about.


Saddam also tried to assasinate a US ex-President.

Well I know this is rumored to have occured, i never heard that he actually tried it. LINK!!


Saddam was threatening our allies as well as us.

Doubtful. LINK!!!


Saddam was also the biggest, baddest, loudest bully among our enimies in the ME. If you've ever been in a gang fight, you should know that's the one you go for.

But he posed no threat to the US, at all. None.

We had an enemy in Saudi Arabia that we ignored, we had a threat in Pakistan that we ignore still even tho they sold nuclear technology, we have an enemy in BinLaden that we are now ignoring (at least according to Bush).

Iraq was nothing. We blew off three more serious threats to attack the one that didn't matter.

We weren't in a gang fight. We were attacked by Bin Laden's punks. They are dead. Bin Laden has roamed free ever since.


Find the right thread and PM me so we can finish this to your eternal satisfaction.

This is the wrong thread.

[loosecannon]

We have plenty of guard here.


I disagree. We needed 10,000 Nat guard to handle Katrina. We need 20,000 on the border and another 100,000 involved in returning the 12 million Illegal aliens living in the US to their home countries.

Bush says we can not round them up. That is largely because our militia is in Iraq. We could round up most of them if we had our forces here protecting our nation as the constitution describes.

The 'enemy" in Iraq is Iraqis who want their country back so they can kill each other.

We can't stop that.

We made a grand mistake. And we spent a trillion dollars making it. We can not succeed in Iraq.

Meanwhile we are bankrupting our own military and our own nation.

This never was an emergency that demanded we send our national guard overseas. We need them at home.

[Mr. P]

I disagree. We needed 10,000 Nat guard to handle Katrina. We need 20,000 on the border and another 100,000 involved in returning the 12 million Illegal aliens living in the US to their home countries.

Bush says we can not round them up. That is largely because our militia is in Iraq. We could round up most of them if we had our forces here protecting our nation as the constitution describes.

The 'enemy" in Iraq is Iraqis who want their country back so they can kill each other.

We can't stop that.

We made a grand mistake. And we spent a trillion dollars making it. We can not succeed in Iraq.
.
Meanwhile we are bankrupting our own military and our own nation.

This never was an emergency that demanded we send our national guard overseas. We need them at home.
We have plenty at home to cover things they would be needed for.

[loosecannon]

the NRA has pretty much sold itself out to manufacturers of "people-punching" automatics, whose only concern is to sell as many of these things as they can

OK, I agree Typo. But what is the point you are making?

There might be some really good points to make. But what are they?

Guns are not the prob in the US. It is the people that are fucked up.

[loosecannon]

We have plenty at home to cover things they would be needed for.

Just not a Katrina response and an illegal alien response. And who knows what will happen tommorrow.

Meanwhile we don't in any way at all need to be in Iraq. It accomplishes nothing but to increase the terrorism threat.

And the constitution is basically being violated so Bush can fight a war without a draft.

Nice!

[Mr. P]

Just not a Katrina response and an illegal alien response. And who knows what will happen tommorrow.

Meanwhile we don't in any way at all need to be in Iraq. It accomplishes nothing but to increase the terrorism threat.

And the constitution is basically being violated so Bush can fight a war without a draft.

Nice!
Bush isn't violating the Constitution. The Guard severed in Vietnam too, legally.

[typomaniac]

OK, I agree Typo. But what is the point you are making?Two points: that gun users in addition to guns themselves should be licensed - and state licensing requirements should be more uniform. Would have made things much tougher for the VT gunman.

Unfortunately, the way the Second is worded could make this kind of much-needed reform problematic.

[Mr. P]

Two points: that gun users in addition to guns themselves should be licensed - and state licensing requirements should be more uniform. Would have made things much tougher for the VT gunman.

Unfortunately, the way the Second is worded could make this kind of much-needed reform problematic.

Does a drivers license and vehicle registration stop a driver from speeding? Just wondering.

[loosecannon]

Two points: that gun users in addition to guns themselves should be licensed - and state licensing requirements should be more uniform. Would have made things much tougher for the VT gunman.

Unfortunately, the way the Second is worded could make this kind of much-needed reform problematic.


States rights vs federal rights.

Yup. I agree with your point.

I don't know that i would agree to change the constitution to accomidate it.

The very same thing can be accomplished within each state.

[loosecannon]

Bush isn't violating the Constitution. The Guard severed in Vietnam too, legally.


The constitution is very clear that only the congress can declare war. But ever since Korea or VN the congress has made the pres responsible for that decision.

That doesn't make it legal. It just means that the branches of gummit are conspiring to break the law for convenience.

The Congress is a bunch of career politicians. They do not want the blame for losing wars and ending wars that their constitutional responsibilities demand.

So they would rather hand off to a pres who will be gone in less than 8 years anyway.

That doesn't make it legal, or right.

Same applies to the national guard.

If you want to debate the legality of it, you better go to law school. Cuz bigger brains than ours take both sides and almost always to serve a pre existing agenda.

[Mr. P]

The constitution is very clear that only the congress can declare war. But ever since Korea or VN the congress has made the pres responsible for that decision.

That doesn't make it legal. It just means that the branches of gummit are conspiring to break the law for convenience.

The Congress is a bunch of career politicians. They do not want the blame for losing wars and ending wars that their constitutional responsibilities demand.

So they would rather hand off to a pres who will be gone in less than 8 years anyway.

That doesn't make it legal, or right.

Same applies to the national guard.

If you want to debate the legality of it, you better go to law school. Cuz bigger brains than ours take both sides and almost always to serve a pre existing agenda.

I don't disagree with that, but there is something out there that makes it legal. Honestly I don't want to look for it now.

BTW..this is taking the thread off topic.

[loosecannon]

I don't disagree with that, but there is something out there that makes it legal. Honestly I don't want to look for it now.

Yeah something like status quo.

It isn't legal according to the constitution.

[Mr. P]

Yeah something like status quo.

It isn't legal according to the constitution.

Lets move back to the thread topic.

[typomaniac]

Does a drivers license and vehicle registration stop a driver from speeding? Just wondering.Well, when states first began to adopt the practice of licensing drivers, the accident rate went down considerably.

[Pale Rider]

Bottom line, one can make a good case that the Second Amendment today is doing the US more harm than good.

If that's true, I haven't heard it yet.

Did you not read about the small town down south somewhere that made it mandatory for every citizen to be armed? Yeah they did, and their crime rate plummeted, and there hasn't been a shooting since, even though the town has dramatically grown. Funny how arming everybody did that huh?

Now you were saying......

[theHawk]

I disagree. We needed 10,000 Nat guard to handle Katrina. We need 20,000 on the border and another 100,000 involved in returning the 12 million Illegal aliens living in the US to their home countries.



The last thing you want is for the military to be kicking down doors searching for people in our own country. That's what law enforcement is for, not the military.

[loosecannon]

The last thing you want is for the military to be kicking down doors searching for people in our own country. That's what law enforcement is for, not the military.

National Guard, not military, under the direction of governors, as in a militia as described in the second amendment.

The second prescribes a means for the states to defend themselves apart from law enforcement.

I know we have been down this road once as a nation, but in the same way that citizens are served by retaining the means to defend their own homes via firearms, the states have an equally important right to defend themselves from the federal forces if it should ever come to that.

The south didn't fare very well, but I believe they were within their legal rights to secede. One of my relatives at the time wrote a lengthy legal argument for the southern states rights of secession. He was an officer in the southern Navy and a law proffesor in peace time.

I read his account and i agree with his position.

The National guard was intended to be the modern states militias with a secondary dual role of acting under federal authority outside the states borders.

[5stringJeff]

I disagree. We needed 10,000 Nat guard to handle Katrina. We need 20,000 on the border and another 100,000 involved in returning the 12 million Illegal aliens living in the US to their home countries.

Bush says we can not round them up. That is largely because our militia is in Iraq. We could round up most of them if we had our forces here protecting our nation as the constitution describes.

The 'enemy" in Iraq is Iraqis who want their country back so they can kill each other.

We can't stop that.

We made a grand mistake. And we spent a trillion dollars making it. We can not succeed in Iraq.

Meanwhile we are bankrupting our own military and our own nation.

This never was an emergency that demanded we send our national guard overseas. We need them at home.

Posse commatitus (sp?) laws prevent us from using the Guard for law enforcement missions (i.e deporting illegals). But I absolutely agree that we should have the NG on the Mexican border.

[typomaniac]

If that's true, I haven't heard it yet.

Did you not read about the small town down south somewhere that made it mandatory for every citizen to be armed? Yeah they did, and their crime rate plummeted, and there hasn't been a shooting since, even though the town has dramatically grown. Funny how arming everybody did that huh?

Now you were saying......Kennesaw, Georgia, right? I've heard of it. Good for them.

I guarantee this approach would not work in New York City.

[loosecannon]

Posse commatitus (sp?) laws prevent us from using the Guard for law enforcement missions (i.e deporting illegals). But I absolutely agree that we should have the NG on the Mexican border.

Throughout the 19th century the regular Army was small, and the militia provided the majority of the troops during the Mexican-American War, the start of the American Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903, part of the militia was federalized and renamed the National Guard and organized as a Reserve force for the Army.

The National Guard is not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act and can engage in law enforcement activities, except when federalized.

link removed cuz it screwed up formating, but it was wiki: United states National Guard

[Pale Rider]

Kennesaw, Georgia, right? I've heard of it. Good for them.

I guarantee this approach would not work in New York City.

Why not?

[loosecannon]

Why not?


In the early colonies every man was not entitled to be armed, they were required to be armed.

Which is why the revolution succeeded. And also why the civil war was so bloody.

Like it or not, the times and the people have changed.

The definition of government has evolved to mean "an authoritive agency which has an exclusive monopoly on the use of force".

[Mr. P]

In the early colonies every man was not entitled to be armed, they were required to be armed.

Which is why the revolution succeeded. And also why the civil war was so bloody.

Like it or not, the times and the people have changed.

The definition of government has evolved to mean "an authoritive agency which has an exclusive monopoly on the use of force".

Not as long as the citizens are armed.

[loosecannon]

Not as long as the citizens are armed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physical_force

The monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force (Gewaltmonopol des Staates, also known as monopoly on legitimate force and monopoly on force) is the definition of the state expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation, and has been predominant in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the 20th century. It defined a single entity, the state, exercising legitimate power or force over a given territory (as territory was also deemed by Weber a characteristic of state).

Times and ideas have changed Mr P.

The old ideas where citizens must be armed were usually reserved for colonies and pioneer settings where the state had not yet established order and rule of law.

[glockmail]

Not according to anybody who knows what they are talking about. .... Bull. :pee:

[loosecannon]

There is ample evidence that Saddam was in bed with bin Laden.

Bull

The commission investigating the attacks on America of September 11 2001 has found "no credible evidence" of a relevant link between Iraq and al-Qaida, contradicting President George Bush's assertion that such a connection justified the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
In a report released today, the commission found that Osama bin Laden considered cooperating with Saddam even though he opposed the Iraqi leader's secular regime. A senior Iraqi intelligence official reportedly met with Bin Laden in 1994 in Sudan, the panel found, and Bin Laden "is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded".


http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Articles/1153.aspx

[glockmail]

Bull

The commission investigating the attacks on America of September 11 2001 has found "no credible evidence" of a relevant link between Iraq and al-Qaida, contradicting President George Bush's assertion that such a connection justified the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
In a report released today, the commission found that Osama bin Laden considered cooperating with Saddam even though he opposed the Iraqi leader's secular regime. A senior Iraqi intelligence official reportedly met with Bin Laden in 1994 in Sudan, the panel found, and Bin Laden "is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded".


http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Articles/1153.aspx Bull. So you believe the politicians? :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

Bull. So you believe the politicians? :laugh2:

There has never been any evidence of a Bin Laden Saddam connection.

The Pentagon, CIA, the 9/11 commission and most of the world agree.

[5stringJeff]

Times and ideas have changed Mr P.

The old ideas where citizens must be armed were usually reserved for colonies and pioneer settings where the state had not yet established order and rule of law.

The times will never change enough for governments not to tend towards corruption and the oppression of the citizens under its charge. That is why citizens must always remain armed.

[typomaniac]

Why not?I could list at least a dozen reasons off-the-cuff as to why what works in small-town Georgia would be a disaster in NYC. But to put it simply, it wouldn't work for the same reason that bulls don't make good security guards in china shops.

[Mr. P]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physical_force

The monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force (Gewaltmonopol des Staates, also known as monopoly on legitimate force and monopoly on force) is the definition of the state expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation, and has been predominant in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the 20th century. It defined a single entity, the state, exercising legitimate power or force over a given territory (as territory was also deemed by Weber a characteristic of state).

Times and ideas have changed Mr P.

The old ideas where citizens must be armed were usually reserved for colonies and pioneer settings where the state had not yet established order and rule of law.

I could care less what Weber may think, fact is as long as the citizens are armed the state will tread softly in their attempts to use force on the population.

[loosecannon]

The times will never change enough for governments not to tend towards corruption and the oppression of the citizens under its charge. That is why citizens must always remain armed.

Well I agree, but for the majority, and in this case the folks in NYC they don't agree.

The reason why everybody in NYC can't be armed and safe is because the folks in NYC have already surrendered their legitimate use of force to the state. They gave up their right at the behest of law enforcement in exchange for the state taking on the responsibility of protecting them.

And that is the direction that the whole world is headed.

IMO when they come for the guns they intend to become an authoritarian state.

[loosecannon]

I could care less what Weber may think, fact is as long as the citizens are armed the state will tread softly in their attempts to use force on the population.

That isn't just Webers opinion, it is the majority opinion of educators, statemen, scholars and political scientists in the 20th century.

Times have left militias and the personal right to bear arms behind in favor of state monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I.E. law enforcement.

[Mr. P]

I could list at least a dozen reasons off-the-cuff as to why what works in small-town Georgia would be a disaster in NYC. But to put it simply, it wouldn't work for the same reason that bulls don't make good security guards in china shops.

This 'small Georgia town' is actually only 25 mile from the center of Atlanta, which is one reason the they made this move, to keep the rats out. It worked. I think it would work anywhere.

[typomaniac]

I could care less what Weber may think, fact is as long as the citizens are armed the state will tread softly in their attempts to use force on the population.You keep trying to reposition the discussion to pretend that it's about ban on guns. It isn't.

I have no problem with the citizens being armed. Understand that. You, too, Hobbit and Jeff.

What's of at least equal importance is that the citizens who ARE armed should be honest, sane, skilled in the use of their weapons, and responsible as hell for keeping them well-maintained and out of the hands of thieves.

The Second isn't helping to bring that about. In fact, my guess would be that it's hindering.

[Mr. P]

That isn't just Webers opinion, it is the majority opinion of educators, statemen, scholars and political scientists in the 20th century.

Times have left militias and the personal right to bear arms behind in favor of state monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I.E. law enforcement.

No doubt about that, thank Gawd for the NRA and others who want to preserve those rights.

[Mr. P]

You keep trying to reposition the discussion to pretend that it's about ban on guns. It isn't.

I have no problem with the citizens being armed. Understand that. You, too, Hobbit and Jeff.

What's of at least equal importance is that the citizens who ARE armed should be honest, sane, skilled in the use of their weapons, and responsible as hell for keeping them well-maintained and out of the hands of thieves.

The Second isn't helping to bring that about. In fact, my guess would be that it's hindering.
I'm not trying to reposition..anyway, what's your solution?

[typomaniac]

I'm not trying to reposition..anyway, what's your solution?I know I mentioned it before, but here it is again.

1. Licensing all firearm users.
2. Making the registration requirements and tracking procedures for firearms more uniform among the states.

Those two should be enough, IMO.

[loosecannon]

Just wanted to interject two random thoughts into the conversation.

> Iraq is an example wherein the majority of people are armed and militias are even more powerful than the state.

> There are over 100 definitions of terrorism. The main reason why there are so many is that the word is always relied upon for some political value.

For example the US law uses at least 6 different legal definitions of terrorism.

Since states engage in terrorism, and in fact may be the most common violators, the word is generally used by governments specifically to render illegitimate the non state use of force

In the US the authority to defend your home is granted to the individual by the state via the constitution. But use of force against the state for any reason is considered terrorism, treason or mutiny.

So your right to bear arms in self defense ends when you point those arms at the state for any reason.

Therefore only the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Legally.

[Mr. P]

I know I mentioned it before, but here it is again.

1. Licensing all firearm users.
2. Making the registration requirements and tracking procedures for firearms more uniform among the states.

Those two should be enough, IMO.

Licensing a user won't do anything to prevent what happened at VT.
The tracking procedure on handguns is uniform nationwide, it's a federal requirement.

Yer battin zippo.

[Mr. P]

Just wanted to interject two random thoughts into the conversation.

> Iraq is an example wherein the majority of people are armed and militias are even more powerful than the state.

> There are over 100 definitions of terrorism. The main reason why there are so many is that the word is always relied upon for some political value.

For example the US law uses at least 6 different legal definitions of terrorism.

Since states engage in terrorism, and in fact may be the most common violators, the word is generally used by governments specifically to render illegitimate the non state use of force

In the US the authority to defend your home is granted to the individual by the state via the constitution. But use of force against the state for any reason is considered terrorism, treason or mutiny.

So your right to bear arms in self defense ends when you point those arms at the state for any reason.

Therefore only the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Legally.

I guess that's why it would be called a civil war. No?

[TheStripey1]

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.
Hobbit do you really take seriously any claims that any of the bill of rights amendments are obsolete?

#2 will never be abolished in my lifetime.

The militia thing tho, why isn't the national guard at home to defend our own nation?

They're in Iraq protecting the Iraqis from being killed by the Iraqis...

[TheStripey1]

WHat is happening in Iraq is absolute proof that the right to bear arms should stay in place, and for me, that includes semi automatic rifles.

I have no problem with SEMI-automatic rifles... I DO have a problem with assault rifles, banana clips and .50 caliber sniper rifles... other than those, any firearm is ok by me...

but IF you really want to have an assault weapon, by all means, enlist.

[TheStripey1]

Because President Bush has chosen to fight the enemy on his turf instead of waiting for them to come here. :pee:

He chose to fight the enemy that attacked us in AFGHANISTAN... not Iraq... and now our forces are bogged down there with no hope of EVER coming home...

Purrsonally, I'd rather that our troopers were here, in Afghanistan or preparing to go to Afghanistan.

[TheStripey1]

1) There is ample evidence that Saddam was in bed with bin Laden.
2) Saddam also tried to assasinate a US ex-President.
3) Saddam was threatening our allies as well as us.

4) Saddam was also the biggest, baddest, loudest bully among our enimies in the ME. If you've ever been in a gang fight, you should know that's the one you go for.


1) got a credible link?
2) so?
3) with what?
4) see 2

[TheStripey1]

OK, I agree Typo. But what is the point you are making?

There might be some really good points to make. But what are they?

Guns are not the prob in the US. It is the people that are fucked up.

right, it's not the guns that kill people, it's the fucked up people with guns that do...

[TheStripey1]

Bush isn't violating the Constitution. The Guard severed in Vietnam too, legally.

severed? the guard was cut off in Nam? from what?

:dance:

[TheStripey1]

Does a drivers license and vehicle registration stop a driver from speeding? Just wondering.

no... but that policeman behind that billboard with the radar gun and ticket book , should...

[5stringJeff]

You keep trying to reposition the discussion to pretend that it's about ban on guns. It isn't.

I have no problem with the citizens being armed. Understand that. You, too, Hobbit and Jeff.

What's of at least equal importance is that the citizens who ARE armed should be honest, sane, skilled in the use of their weapons, and responsible as hell for keeping them well-maintained and out of the hands of thieves.

The Second isn't helping to bring that about. In fact, my guess would be that it's hindering.


I know I mentioned it before, but here it is again.

1. Licensing all firearm users.
2. Making the registration requirements and tracking procedures for firearms more uniform among the states.

Those two should be enough, IMO.

I understand your point: you want gun owners to be:
1. honest,
2. sane,
3. (somewhat) skilled, and,
4. responsible for their weapons.

However, your two proposed policies (universal licensing and federal firearms tracking) would not bring about your desired outcome.

Honesty is hard to enforce, but we can - and do - keep felons from owning firearms legally.
Those deemed mentally insane, ill, etc. are also banned from owning firearms. I believe that is federal law, but if not, many states have this in place.
The last two are harder nuts to crack. Some localities mandate that anyone who wants a CCL has to go through a gun safety class. I think that's a wise policy.
However, holding someone responsible for a stolen weapon is not only hard to do without a federal registry, it's also unfair. As anecdotal evidence, I had a handgun stolen from my home. A few days later, the thief's boyfriend used my pistol in a botched drug deal. The only reason I knew it was my pistol was from the distinctive markings. Anyway, our home was locked, so I had no reason to believe that we would be broken into. It would be ludicrous to hold me responsible for the assault and attempted murder that a thief's boyfriend committed without my knowledge.

[5stringJeff]

I have no problem with SEMI-automatic rifles... I DO have a problem with assault rifles, banana clips and .50 caliber sniper rifles... other than those, any firearm is ok by me...

but IF you really want to have an assault weapon, by all means, enlist.

Why should one type of firearm be banned, and another allowed? Who are you to say that I don't deserve to have a .50 cal rifle, or a curved magazine for my semi-automatic rifle, or a rifle with a couple of unpopular cosmetic features (which would make it an "assault" rifle)? If you have a problem with assault rifles, don't get one, but don't keep me from getting one.

[typomaniac]

I understand your point: you want gun owners to be:
1. honest,
2. sane,
3. (somewhat) skilled, and,
4. responsible for their weapons.

However, your two proposed policies (universal licensing and federal firearms tracking) would not bring about your desired outcome.

Honesty is hard to enforce, but we can - and do - keep felons from owning firearms legally.
Those deemed mentally insane, ill, etc. are also banned from owning firearms. I believe that is federal law, but if not, many states have this in place.
The last two are harder nuts to crack. Some localities mandate that anyone who wants a CCL has to go through a gun safety class. I think that's a wise policy.
However, holding someone responsible for a stolen weapon is not only hard to do without a federal registry, it's also unfair. As anecdotal evidence, I had a handgun stolen from my home. A few days later, the thief's boyfriend used my pistol in a botched drug deal. The only reason I knew it was my pistol was from the distinctive markings. Anyway, our home was locked, so I had no reason to believe that we would be broken into. It would be ludicrous to hold me responsible for the assault and attempted murder that a thief's boyfriend committed without my knowledge.I appreciate the arguments, but I don't see how any of them except the last one are connected to your claim that user licensing and federal tracking wouldn't solve the problem.

By the way, most states do come down rather hard on gun owners who fail to report a gun theft before the gun is used in a crime. They don't hold you responsible for the crime itself, but there's usually a significant charge involved.

[Gunny]

I have no problem with SEMI-automatic rifles... I DO have a problem with assault rifles, banana clips and .50 caliber sniper rifles... other than those, any firearm is ok by me...

but IF you really want to have an assault weapon, by all means, enlist.

IMO, ther eprobably should be a line drawn where civilian ownership of military weapons is concerned. However, I find "assault rifle" inventing an enemy.

If anything, focus should be emphasized on the owner, not the weapon. And I don't agree with either extreme on this issue.

I don't see ensuring people who posess firearms are qualified as some infringement on my Second Amendment Right. Neither do I blame an object that requires the conscious act of a human being as the problem itself.

And the "assault weapon" thing is contrived, IMO. I own a Remington Model 700 in .308 that's sold as a hunting rifle and I guarantee you I could more damage with it than some idiot with an Uzi set on "spray."

I have revolvers that I have speedloaders for, and with practice, ejact and reload can be almost as fast as changing a magazine in a semi-auto.

Point is, you just have to know what you're doing, and a Colt 1850 .44 Navy cap-n-ball revolver is an "assault weapon."

[glockmail]

There has never been any evidence of a Bin Laden Saddam connection.

The Pentagon, CIA, the 9/11 commission and most of the world agree.

There is plenty of evidence. You just choose to ignore it. Any proof that that "most of the world" agrees that there is NO evidence?

[5stringJeff]

I appreciate the arguments, but I don't see how any of them except the last one are connected to your claim that user licensing and federal tracking wouldn't solve the problem.

I was covering all four of your 'requirements.' You're right, my last point is the only one that replaces your proposal of universal licensing and federal tracking of firearms - both of which pose a huge threat to firearms users, by creating the means for a government to suddenly ban firearms and know exactly where to go to confiscate them.


By the way, most states do come down rather hard on gun owners who fail to report a gun theft before the gun is used in a crime. They don't hold you responsible for the crime itself, but there's usually a significant charge involved.

My gun was stolen on a Sunday. We reported it gone on Tuesday (when I looked for it, and it was missing). It was used in a crime the next Friday. The perpetrators (the thief and her boyfriend) are serving 10 and 42 year sentences, respectively.

[Gunny]

I was covering all four of your 'requirements.' You're right, my last point is the only one that replaces your proposal of universal licensing and federal tracking of firearms - both of which pose a huge threat to firearms users, by creating the means for a government to suddenly ban firearms and know exactly where to go to confiscate them.



My gun was stolen on a Sunday. We reported it gone on Tuesday (when I looked for it, and it was missing). It was used in a crime the next Friday. The perpetrators (the thief and her boyfriend) are serving 10 and 42 year sentences, respectively.

There is no criminal charge that i am aware of for failing to report a stolen firearm. A responsible person will do it regardless.

[loosecannon]

There is plenty of evidence. You just choose to ignore it. Any proof that that "most of the world" agrees that there is NO evidence?

I won't waste my time trying to prove a negative.

You wanta debate whether Saddam had an AQ connection, start a thread, call me out one on one and let's dance.

[glockmail]

I won't waste my time trying to prove a negative.

You wanta debate whether Saddam had an AQ connection, start a thread, call me out one on one and let's dance. 1990… One of the first meetings was between Ayman Al-Zawahiri, head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad which later merged with Al-Qaeda, making Zawahiri second only to Bin Laden. This has been confirmed by a former Iraqi intelligence officer and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan forces. Washington Post, March 18, 2002.

The beginning of cooperation with Al-Qaeda began in 1994. Farouq Hijazi, a high-ranking Iraqi intelligence officer, had his first meeting with Osama Bin Laden in Sudan. Radio Free Europe, October 19, 2001

1997 … the first Al-Qaeda camps in Iraq opened up. Saddam Hussein’s regime increased the flow of small arms and money to Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist organization. Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2002

[loosecannon]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

http://voanews.com/english/2007-04-06-voa14.cfm

06 April 2007


A U.S. Defense Department internal probe has found there was no direct cooperation between the al-Qaida terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government.

A declassified Pentagon report says military officials reached the conclusion based on interviews with Saddam and two former aides, and documents seized by U.S. forces after Saddam was ousted in 2003.

The report by Pentagon acting inspector general Thomas Gimble backs earlier assertions made by the intelligence community before the U.S.-led invasion that Iraq and al-Qaida had no operational ties.

That's the Pentagon, the 9/11 commission and the US intelligence community disputing your false claims.

[typomaniac]

I was covering all four of your 'requirements.' You're right, my last point is the only one that replaces your proposal of universal licensing and federal tracking of firearms - both of which pose a huge threat to firearms users, by creating the means for a government to suddenly ban firearms and know exactly where to go to confiscate them.In that case, what would be wrong with repealing the second amendment for the purpose of replacing it with something that has clearer language (such as "firearms shall not be banned in the United States")?

[Mr. P]

In that case, what would be wrong with repealing the second amendment for the purpose of replacing it with something that has clearer language (such as "firearms shall not be banned in the United States")?

Of the top of my head I'd say the problem with that is...

By eliminating the second and replacing it with "firearms shall not be banned in the United States" only serves to eliminate the right to own a weapon. They're not banned, but you can't have one.

It's a back door to ownership being illegal.

[glockmail]

....
That's the Pentagon, the 9/11 commission and the US intelligence community disputing your false claims.

No, that's some politicians, some pentagon officials, and some spies. "Some experts say..." is a common liberal method of disputing obvious facts and evidence, of which there is a ton to show that Saddam and bin Laden were butt buddies.

[loosecannon]

No, that's some politicians, some pentagon officials, and some spies. "Some experts say..." is a common liberal method of disputing obvious facts and evidence, of which there is a ton to show that Saddam and bin Laden were butt buddies.

A common republican technique for disputing obvious facts and evidence is to pound their fists and yell

"no it isn't so"

plug their ears, cover their eyes and pound their feet

Meanwhile the pentagon, 9/11 commission and US intel community all dispute your false claims.

[glockmail]

A common republican technique for disputing obvious facts and evidence is to pound their fists and yell

"no it isn't so"

plug their ears, cover their eyes and pound their feet

Meanwhile the pentagon, 9/11 commission and US intel community all dispute your false claims.

No, "some experts" dispute them. But in a time of war, when your enemies are working very hard to keep secrets, you don't require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" to take action. Real men step in and take action.

As I pointed out, there was adequate evidence for real men to make those difficult choices, knowing full well that some pansies would question the decision later.

[Abbey Marie]

A common republican technique for disputing obvious facts and evidence is to pound their fists and yell

"no it isn't so"

plug their ears, cover their eyes and pound their feet
Meanwhile the pentagon, 9/11 commission and US intel community all dispute your false claims.


You mean like you did in thread which argued that Pelosi was negotiating with foreign leaders?;)

[typomaniac]

Of the top of my head I'd say the problem with that is...

By eliminating the second and replacing it with "firearms shall not be banned in the United States" only serves to eliminate the right to own a weapon. They're not banned, but you can't have one.

It's a back door to ownership being illegal.I don't follow. There already isn't a universal "right" to own a weapon. Jeff said so himself.

Besides, a statement like "They're not banned, but you can't have one" makes as much sense as saying "She's not pregnant, but there's a fetus inside her uterus."

[Mr. P]

I don't follow. There already isn't a universal "right" to own a weapon. Jeff said so himself.

Besides, a statement like "They're not banned, but you can't have one" makes as much sense as saying "She's not pregnant, but there's a fetus inside her uterus."
You're an Idiot that is looking for a way to take firearms from law abiding citizens, even if it means changing the U.S. Constitution, just admit it. Yer transparent, pal.

[typomaniac]

You're an Idiot that is looking for a way to take firearms from law abiding citizens, even if it means changing the U.S. Constitution, just admit it. Yer transparent, pal.Can't have a meaningful argument, so you just resort to name calling and baseless accusations?

Okay, I got your number. So long, shitbag. :fu:

[manu1959]

Can't have a meaningful argument, so you just resort to name calling and baseless accusations?

Okay, I got your number. So long, shitbag. :fu:

somewhat ironic post....I am not going to get into a name calling exercise with the Bush Admins Attack Dog.....:laugh2:

[Mr. P]

Can't have a meaningful argument, so you just resort to name calling and baseless accusations?

Okay, I got your number. So long, shitbag. :fu:

You have a problem with calling a spade a spade?

You want zero firearms available, but hide it behind BS.

Yeah, you got my number alright, I see through yer BS. Deal with it.:lol:

[glockmail]

Score Mr. P: 1, Typomaniac: 0.

[typomaniac]

Score Mr. P: 1, Typomaniac: 0.And glockmail: -8 for making nothing but offtopic posts in this thread. :lol:

[glockmail]

And glockmail: -8 for making nothing but offtopic posts in this thread. :lol: Where? :poke:

[typomaniac]

Where? :poke:Posts #21, 24, 53, 55, 81, 85, 89, 91, 98, and 100.
:dance:

[loosecannon]

You mean like you did in thread which argued that Pelosi was negotiating with foreign leaders?;)

no more like Glock's refusal to accept pentagon reports, the 9/11 comission reports and reports by US intelligence that the claim that Saddam was involved with AQ was and is bunk science.

And that real men have known it all along.

Evidence that Pelosi was negotiating has not surfaced.

[loosecannon]

You want zero firearms available, but hide it behind BS.



Oh come on Mr P, Typo never said anything like that. You can't claim to know his mind better than he does.

[loosecannon]

And glockmail: -8 for making nothing but offtopic posts in this thread. :lol:

I been guilty of that myself. You can call me Mr. Offtopic as punishment.

[Mr. P]

Oh come on Mr P, Typo never said anything like that. You can't claim to know his mind better than he does.

He doesn't have to say it, it's obvious.

[glockmail]

Posts #21, 24, 53, 55, 81, 85, 89, 91, 98, and 100.
:dance: How was any one of the off topic? :pee:

[glockmail]

no more like Glock's refusal to accept pentagon reports, the 9/11 comission reports and reports by US intelligence that the claim that Saddam was involved with AQ was and is bunk science.

And that real men have known it all along.

Evidence that Pelosi was negotiating has not surfaced.

Can you provide a link to where any of these agencies claim "bunk science". Of course not, as it all comes down to THE DEGREE OF PROOF. You libs have to feel the heat of a nuke on our shores before you'd fight terrorists, and I, as a REAL MAN, prefer to beat on them now, in their countries, when we have the chance.

[5stringJeff]

In that case, what would be wrong with repealing the second amendment for the purpose of replacing it with something that has clearer language (such as "firearms shall not be banned in the United States")?

Because it already says that: "[t]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I have a right to bear arms. The government cannot infringe upon it (though it has, and does).

[typomaniac]

Because it already says that: "[t]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I have a right to bear arms. The government cannot infringe upon it (though it has, and does).Interpreting that phrase literally means that convicted felons and the mentally ill have just as much right to bear arms as you do. Why have this legal morass of confusion over such a ridiculous wording?

[glockmail]

Interpreting that phrase literally means that convicted felons and the mentally ill have just as much right to bear arms as you do. Why have this legal morass of confusion over such a ridiculous wording? The use of the word "people" assumes those who can accept personal responsibility. Along with your group you should add liberals to those who should not have guns.

[typomaniac]

The use of the word "people" assumes those who can accept personal responsibility. Along with your group you should add liberals to those who should not have guns.Troll.

:gay: :fart:, you :ahole:

[glockmail]

Troll.

:gay: :fart:, you :ahole:

As you have resorted to personal insults it is quite clear that you have lost the argument. :D

[GW in Ohio]

We will never repeal the 2nd amendment.

But as long as right-wingers can have their guns, they will continue to shoot one another when:

1. They get drunk.
2. When there's a dispute over whether to watch Maury Povich or Judge Judy on TV.
3. A fight breaks out over who gets the pickup truck on Friday night.

Thus, right-wingers will thin the herd and keep their numbers at manageable levels.

[glockmail]

We will never repeal the 2nd amendment.

But as long as right-wingers can have their guns, they will continue to shoot one another when:

1. They get drunk.
2. When there's a dispute over whether to watch Maury Povich or Judge Judy on TV.
3. A fight breaks out over who gets the pickup truck on Friday night.

Thus, right-wingers will thin the herd and keep their numbers at manageable levels.

So it is your asssumption that all right wingers:
1. at times get drunk, then get into deadly fights;
2. watch crappy TV passionately;
3. Drive pickups that they have to share with another person.

Am I correct that these are your assumptions? :poke:

[Mr. P]

So it is your asssumption that all right wingers:
1. at times get drunk, then get into deadly fights;
2. watch crappy TV passionately;
3. Drive pickups that they have to share with another person.

Am I correct that these are your assumptions? :poke:

Add ALL right wingers own guns...:laugh2:

[Sitarro]

Iraq wasn't our enemy. And Bush was wrong. We need that guard here for our own problems.

We didn't attack Iraq, we attacked Saddam's regime and he was a threat.

[Sitarro]

We will never repeal the 2nd amendment.

But as long as right-wingers can have their guns, they will continue to shoot one another when:

1. They get drunk.
2. When there's a dispute over whether to watch Maury Povich or Judge Judy on TV.
3. A fight breaks out over who gets the pickup truck on Friday night.

Thus, right-wingers will thin the herd and keep their numbers at manageable levels.

I suggest you go to your local prison and interview the inmates, see how many voted Republican. Why do you think the Hillary wants to change the law to allow felons the right to vote?