Enact, then enforce, sensible gun laws

[gabosaurus]

I understand why you would want to own a hand gun. I own one, and I know how to use it.
I understand why you would want to own a hunting rifle.
Why would you want to own a fully functional and working extended magazine Glock? Or an Uzi?
Without resorting to Second Amendment rhetoric, please tell me.

http://azstarnet.com/article_c61ecf5c-7dd2-5253-baf2-a1b1f7507043.html

[NightTrain]

I understand why you would want to own a hand gun. I own one, and I know how to use it.
I understand why you would want to own a hunting rifle.
Why would you want to own a fully functional and working extended magazine Glock? Or an Uzi?
Without resorting to Second Amendment rhetoric, please tell me.

http://azstarnet.com/article_c61ecf5c-7dd2-5253-baf2-a1b1f7507043.html

What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

[Missileman]

I understand why you would want to own a hand gun. I own one, and I know how to use it.
I understand why you would want to own a hunting rifle.
Why would you want to own a fully functional and working extended magazine Glock? Or an Uzi?
Without resorting to Second Amendment rhetoric, please tell me.

http://azstarnet.com/article_c61ecf5c-7dd2-5253-baf2-a1b1f7507043.html

Do you want to enact gun or magazine legislation? In your example of the Glock, the gun isn't modified, the magazine is. A person with 6 revolvers can kill as many people as someone with 2 extended clip Glocks. I'm more curious to hear what you think constitutes sensible gun legislation, especially since you own a handgun.

[BoogyMan]

You ask a question and then tell us to answer without referencing the specific constitutional right that gives us such freedoms?

Dumbest freaking premise I have ever seen!


I understand why you would want to own a hand gun. I own one, and I know how to use it.
I understand why you would want to own a hunting rifle.
Why would you want to own a fully functional and working extended magazine Glock? Or an Uzi?
Without resorting to Second Amendment rhetoric, please tell me.

http://azstarnet.com/article_c61ecf5c-7dd2-5253-baf2-a1b1f7507043.html

[Little-Acorn]

Why would you want to own a fully functional and working extended magazine Glock? Or an Uzi?

Because some blinders-on fanatical leftist person such as yourself might someday show up trying to justify taking away something of mine it is no business of hers to control, and I want the ability to blow her head off (and all those she brings with her to enforce her whims) or otherwise dissuade her without working up a sweat.

Anything else I can help you with?


Why would you want to own a fully functional and working extended magazine Glock? Or an Uzi?


Q: How can you tell when someone is out to restrict or ban guns?

A: They start asking why you want to exercise that right in a certain way, as though they believed they could justify taking away your rights because you didn't explain your need for them well enough.

[avatar4321]

To kill people that attack me easier.

[SassyLady]

I understand why you would want to own a hand gun. I own one, and I know how to use it.
I understand why you would want to own a hunting rifle.
Why would you want to own a fully functional and working extended magazine Glock? Or an Uzi?
Without resorting to Second Amendment rhetoric, please tell me.

http://azstarnet.com/article_c61ecf5c-7dd2-5253-baf2-a1b1f7507043.html

Because, Gabby, it's not always one-on-one confrontation .... where everyone plays by the rule of only one little handgun per person to make it a fair fight. I want to make sure I have the advantage ... whether it's one-on-one or a whole gang coming at me.

Did you really ask such a silly question?

See...I answered with resorting to Second Amendment rhetoric ... just basic survival reasoning.

[gabosaurus]

Because, Gabby, it's not always one-on-one confrontation .... where everyone plays by the rule of only one little handgun per person to make it a fair fight. I want to make sure I have the advantage ... whether it's one-on-one or a whole gang coming at me.

Did you really ask such a silly question?

See...I answered with resorting to Second Amendment rhetoric ... just basic survival reasoning.

At least ONE respondent actually understood my question. Which doesn't say much for the intellectual capabilities of the rest.
But it still doesn't answer my question about why any normal person needs an assault rifle. No one is questioning the right to own guns. Just the type of firearms that you own.
Perhaps one of the more informed gun nuts can explain to the parents of the slain 9-year-old girl in Tucson why it is legal to own a working Glock.

[Mr. P]

At least ONE respondent actually understood my question. Which doesn't say much for the intellectual capabilities of the rest.
But it still doesn't answer my question about why any normal person needs an assault rifle. No one is questioning the right to own guns. Just the type of firearms that you own.
Perhaps one of the more informed gun nuts can explain to the parents of the slain 9-year-old girl in Tucson why it is legal to own a working Glock.
A Glock is not an assault rifle nor an assault pistol. It is one of many legal "semi-automatic" pistols on the market.

[gabosaurus]

Thanks for that information. Do you wish to answer the question, or just avoid it?

[SassyLady]

At least ONE respondent actually understood my question. Which doesn't say much for the intellectual capabilities of the rest.
But it still doesn't answer my question about why any normal person needs an assault rifle. No one is questioning the right to own guns. Just the type of firearms that you own.
Perhaps one of the more informed gun nuts can explain to the parents of the slain 9-year-old girl in Tucson why it is legal to own a working Glock.

I don't think anyone needs to explain anything to this man. He's fully aware of why there are gun rights.

Here's what he has to say about gun rights.


Father Of Christina Green Says More Restriction On Freedom Isn’t The Answer


This interview with the father of 9 year-old Christina Green is remarkable both for the emotion itself and for his statement that he didn’t think that the death of his daughter should be the occasion for greater restrictions of American’s freedom, and it’s worthy of consideration by all of us.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/father-of-christina-green-says-more-restriction-on-freedom-isnt-the-answer/



Here's another quote:


Hill noted, "This has become a little political, on both sides, people pointing fingers. Talking about that. Is that hard for you to hear?"

Roxanna Green said, "I haven't listened to any of it, so I don't really know, but I can imagine."

"That just makes me even more angry," John Green said. "That's not what this is about. This is a random act of cowardice."

"A senseless act," Roxanna Green added.

John Green continued, "It shouldn't be used for that. People need to realize that you know, you don't settle your issues with guns. If you have issues handle it directly with the person."

Hill noted, "There's a man who's being held as a suspect in your daughter's death. Is there anything that you want to see happen in terms of justice for your own sake, for the person who killed your daughter?"

John Green said, "My wife is very forgiving in that regard. I'm a little about the Old West. It's a fairly clear-cut case, and I'm a fan of capital punishment in this regard."

Hill asked him, "Would you say anything to him if you had the opportunity?"

"No," he said. "I wouldn't care to even talk to the guy, because that would, that wouldn't change anything. My daughter's gone and she's not coming back. Again, that would be a waste of breath."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/10/earlyshow/living/parenting/main7230376.shtml


As for an assault rifle? Perhaps there are some people that don't think our government can protect us adequately enough and want their own protection, just in case.

[Nukeman]

Hell when the zombie hordes mass I want to be able to pick them off as far away as possible!!!!

Seriously though the "definition" of an assault rifle is not very good. In fact Gabs there are a number of guns outlawed in CA that the rest of the US finds fine. You know I read about the US olympic shooter that couldn't even practice in her home state of CA due to the caliber of her shooting pistol.. Kind of pathetic don't you think..

AS for the high capacity mag, If they feel they need it than who are you or I to tell them otherwise.. Y

You feel the need to have a handgun in your house, I am not telling you you can't have that. Should we limit the caliber to a 22 lr for home defense??

do I feel a private citizen "needs" a grenade launcher?? Not really but if he is part of a militia than they should be able to obtain the same fireams as the military!

[darin]

Gabby is a clear sexist loon. There's NO reasonable answer she'll accept that doesn't come from a woman. (shrug). Feeding her, by even qualifying her dribble with an answer, only serves to feed her ego.

[revelarts]

I understand why you would want to own a hand gun. I own one, and I know how to use it.
I understand why you would want to own a hunting rifle.
Why would you want to own a fully functional and working extended magazine Glock? Or an Uzi?
Without resorting to Second Amendment rhetoric, please tell me.

http://azstarnet.com/article_c61ecf5c-7dd2-5253-baf2-a1b1f7507043.html

Because its fun.

Why does anyone want to drive fast?
Why would anyone jump off a mountain with a parachute?

Why would anyone want to stop EVERYONE else (except the criminals and gov't) from owning an uzi or 30 rounds clip after after a handful of bad incidents?

Yes guns are dangerous and need to be handled with care but the gov't is not our mommy or daddy.

I can apresciate the sentament of trying to keep people "safe" but I'm so Weary of people using the gov't as an excuse to "take care of people". it's not the gov't Job. There's SO many real crimes to be dealt with so many deaths and injuries caused by other much more mundane means too.

[namvet]

flabby's got a gun. she's got em on the run....bye

[OldMercsRule]

At least ONE respondent actually understood my question.

Why yes....... yes she did, not only is she goooooood lookin' but smart tooooooooo........ M...MM...MMM :cool:


Which doesn't say much for the intellectual capabilities of the rest.

Speakin' fer messef..... I'm a bit slow ta reply due to the limits of one functional brain cell........ :laugh:


But it still doesn't answer my question about why any normal person needs an assault rifle.

The last thing people who know me would call me is normal.... That said, I own an island fairly near a major metropolitian area, I'm bearish about the prospects fer the economy n' currency n' such.

If I have to take me family n' luved ones to my island ta avoid the hungry masses, (think New Orleans), I need to be able ta execute a layered defense.

I have a high powered rifle with a 3 x 9 scope that some look down their nose Liberals may initially approve (fer hunting), before they wanna take it away fer some snarky reason. That covers the first 1000 yard perimiter. BTW if the bad guys in their boat hear the crack of a high powered rifle accross the bow they may ponder if their objective is worth the risk ;) They wil really think when the second round punctures the bow of the boat........

If they keep cuming after the first two shots, I will get me AK-47 out, (as I have far more shells fer the Chi-com rifle and pinpoint accuracy isn't necessary anymore), since now the cornfrontation is lethal. I should be able ta take out the first boat load with me 75 round drum, butt: if not I have many 30 round bannana clips ta throw their way.

If they make if to the shore on me property then it is either me .357 or more likely me KP 89, (the clip is 17 although I also have thirty round one that stick out the butt of the hand gun). If they get past that (and me dogs), then they can try ta take me one on one, butt: I will never give up and I also have samurai swords et al they can look forward tooooooo.

If all that fails they can have me dead body. :salute:


No one is questioning the right to own guns.

Yes you are. Modern Liberals, (fascists really), are into Corntrol from Centrol Corntrol. :laugh2:


Just the type of firearms that you own.

You and yer kind are the last kinda people who will ever get ta approve each breath of air I fill me lungs with. :salute:


Perhaps one of the more informed gun nuts can explain to the parents of the slain 9-year-old girl in Tucson why it is legal to own a working Glock.

F*** that emotional chit.

I mind me own bidness and I am a very good neighbor as I would also protect you if you were me neighbor, (I'm sure others who live near me will be at me island if things ever get bad). Let's all hope not eh? That said: I will never let ya stick that long Liberal nose into me bidness n' mind it.

Hope that is clear.

Respectfully, JR

[Mr. P]

Thanks for that information. Do you wish to answer the question, or just avoid it?
Now that you understand a "working" Glock is not an assault rifle and still have a question you can clarify, I'll give it a shot.

[jon_forward]

I want a 50 cal rifle, why ??? because I can. nuff said

[Little-Acorn]

Enact, then enforce, sensible gun laws

Actually, we already have all the sensible gun laws we need. We had them in the late 1700's.

It's a section in the Constitution that tells us that since guns and other such weapons are necessary for security and freedom, government isn't allowed to take away or restrict our right to own and carry them.

It's the sensible law that Gabby keep trying to forbid us from pointing out.

Unfortunately, it's not being enforced much, and government keeps violating it.

[fj1200]

While not being one to argue gun laws either way it seems that liberals are always in favor of "sensible" laws/regulations in the misunderstanding that the absence of said laws are automatically non-sensible. There is always the constant encroachment of more and more "sensibility" even in the face of evidence that the original encroachment started to cause the problems that they want to regulate down the road.

[SassyLady]

Gabby is a clear sexist loon. There's NO reasonable answer she'll accept that doesn't come from a woman. (shrug). Feeding her, by even qualifying her dribble with an answer, only serves to feed her ego.

I resent this answer ... I am a woman and think I have reasonable beliefs about arming ourselves. :tank:

[KitchenKitten99]

Here ya go Gabby, just for you...
Three things you can't stand: Men, Tobacco, and Guns...

(pic of my Mr. and myself with a new toy [AR-10] that one of our regular customers brought in for show & tell)
21042103

[NightTrain]

I resent this answer ... I am a woman and think I have reasonable beliefs about arming ourselves. :tank:

I think he was saying that Gabs won't take any response from a male as worthwhile since she's repeatedly stated that all men are idiots.

[Missileman]

I wonder why Gabby won't answer my question?

[SassyLady]

I think he was saying that Gabs won't take any response from a male as worthwhile since she's repeatedly stated that all men are idiots.

I was just teasing him....and poking Gabby a little bit.


I wonder why Gabby won't answer my question?

It's above her pay grade? :poke:

[bullypulpit]

What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Following the logic of the absolutist Second Amendment rhetoric of the right wing in this country, each and every one of us should be free to acquire any and all ordnance in the US military's arsenal.

The fact of the matter is that banning the manufacture and sale of large capacity clips, bullet ID technology and permanent ballistics profiles on all guns manufactured and sold in this country impose no burden to gun ownership. As a hunter and gun owner myself, they would be no burden to me. By the same token, I have never needed an AK-47 with an extended clip on full auto to take down a deer. My bolt action Remington .270 with a 130 grain boat-tail provides consistent "one shot-one kill" reliability.

[SassyLady]

Following the logic of the absolutist Second Amendment rhetoric of the right wing in this country, each and every one of us should be free to acquire any and all ordnance in the US military's arsenal.

The fact of the matter is that banning the manufacture and sale of large capacity clips, bullet ID technology and permanent ballistics profiles on all guns manufactured and sold in this country impose no burden to gun ownership. As a hunter and gun owner myself, they would be no burden to me. By the same token, I have never needed an AK-47 with an extended clip on full auto to take down a deer. My bolt action Remington .270 with a 130 grain boat-tail provides consistent "one shot-one kill" reliability.

This is what I remember about the Second Amendment. It wasn't created to protect one's right to shoot deer ... but more of a protection against a tyrannical government.




Thus, say Standard Model writers, the Second Amendment protects the same sort of individual right that other parts of the Bill of Rights provide. To hold otherwise, these writers argue, is to do violence to the Bill of Rights since, if one "right of the people" could be held not to apply to individuals, then so could others.[21] Furthermore, as William Van Alstyne notes, the "right" to which the Second Amendment refers is clearly the right "of the people, to keep and bear arms."[22] Thus, whatever the meaning of the (p.467)Amendment's reference to a "well-regulated militia," that reference does not modify the right recognized by the Amendment.[23]

This textual argument is also supported by reference to history. Standard Model scholars muster substantial evidence that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to arms.[24] The first piece of evidence for this proposition is that such a right was protected by the English Bill of Rights of 1689.[25] As such, it became one of the "Rights of Englishmen" around which the American Revolutionaries initially rallied.[26] Standard Model scholars also stress that the right to keep and bear arms was seen as serving two purposes. First, it allowed individuals to defend themselves from outlaws of all kinds--not only ordinary criminals, but also soldiers and government officials who exceeded their authority, for in the legal and philosophical framework of the time no distinction was made between the two.[27] Just as importantly, the presence of an armed populace was seen as a check on government tyranny and on the power of a standing army. With the citizenry armed, imposing tyranny would be far more difficult than it would be with the citizenry defenseless.

Tench Coxe made this point in a commentary on the Second Amendment.[28] Coxe explained the purpose of the Amendment this way:(p.468)

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.[29]

Similarly, Madison himself wrote that a regular army that threatened liberty would find itself opposed by "a militia amounting to near a half a million citizens with arms in their hands."[30] Madison contrasted the situation in America with that obtaining under the European governments, whom he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and argued that the new federal government need not be feared because Americans possessed "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."[31]
Standard Model scholars note that these statements were echoed by similar sentiments from other Framers, all of whom seem to have been proponents of the individual ownership of firearms. Thomas Jefferson was a vigorous advocate of gun ownership because he believed that it fostered both personal and societal virtue;[32] a model constitution that he drafted for (p.469)Virginia in 1776 included a provision guaranteeing that "[n]o Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands]."[33] Similarly, Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry agreed, stating that "The great object is that every man be armed.... Every one who is able may have a gun."[34]
Thus, the right to keep and bear arms was considered an essential form of protection not just for home and hearth, but also against government tyranny. It can be understood as yet another of the forms of division of power that the Framers created to protect citizens' liberties. It is commonplace to note that the Framers divided power within the federal government, by apportioning it among three branches, and that the Framers divided government power in general by splitting it between the federal government and the governments of the states. But under the Standard Model approach it is fair to say that the Framers divided power yet another way, by ensuring that the citizenry possessed sufficient military power to offset that of the Federal government. Such a division makes sense in light of such other (p.470)Constitutional language as the Preamble's statement that the authority of the government comes from the people, and the similar statement in the Tenth Amendment.[35] If the federal and state governments are merely agents of the people, it is logical that the people would be reluctant to surrender a monopoly on military power to their servants, for fear that their servants might someday become their master.

source: http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

[fj1200]

This is what I remember about the Second Amendment. It wasn't created to protect one's right to shoot deer ... but more of a protection against a tyrannical government.

Well that's just not sensible. Government is here to do "what's in our best interest."

My apologies for crossing quotes over threads again hopefully some will make the connection.

[NightTrain]

Following the logic of the absolutist Second Amendment rhetoric of the right wing in this country, each and every one of us should be free to acquire any and all ordnance in the US military's arsenal.

The fact of the matter is that banning the manufacture and sale of large capacity clips, bullet ID technology and permanent ballistics profiles on all guns manufactured and sold in this country impose no burden to gun ownership. As a hunter and gun owner myself, they would be no burden to me. By the same token, I have never needed an AK-47 with an extended clip on full auto to take down a deer. My bolt action Remington .270 with a 130 grain boat-tail provides consistent "one shot-one kill" reliability.

I guess I missed the part in the Constitution where it spells out the right to gun ownership specifically to hunt deer or for hunting anything in general.

No need to try and interpret it - "Shall not be infringed" spells it out rather clearly, don't you think? Last time I checked, it doesn't say "...unless someone disagrees, in which case check with your highest ranking Democrat and receive guidance as to your firearm needs and rights."

Nice work, SL... you beat me to it. :2up:

[Trigg]

At least ONE respondent actually understood my question. Which doesn't say much for the intellectual capabilities of the rest.
But it still doesn't answer my question about why any normal person needs an assault rifle. No one is questioning the right to own guns. Just the type of firearms that you own.
Perhaps one of the more informed gun nuts can explain to the parents of the slain 9-year-old girl in Tucson why it is legal to own a working Glock.

Well I'm not a fan of handguns of ANY TYPE and I don't see any use for someone outside law enforcement to have them.

Hubby of course completely disagrees, which didn't stop me from getting rid of the one he brought home. :coffee:

Personally if I'm going to use something for home security give me a shotgun any day. No matter how nervous I am, I won't miss. Of course, because of the kids, our guns are locked up tight and so are not easily retrieved.

[Mr. P]

Well I'm not a fan of handguns of ANY TYPE and I don't see any use for someone outside law enforcement to have them.

Hubby of course completely disagrees, which didn't stop me from getting rid of the one he brought home. :coffee:

Personally if I'm going to use something for home security give me a shotgun any day. No matter how nervous I am, I won't miss. Of course, because of the kids, our guns are locked up tight and so are not easily retrieved. Could you see a use if you were broken down at night and the friendly guys that stop to help have rape in mind instead of help? Just wondering what your reasoning on "use" is.

[Trigg]

Could you see a use if you were broken down at night and the friendly guys that stop to help have rape in mind instead of help? Just wondering what your reasoning on "use" is.

I don't carry any guns around in the car with me and even I could it would be locked up.

I still maintain that a shotgun is more use as home defense than a handgun, it's hard to miss someone.

Believe me I've been over this particular argument with hubby. We don't have handguns in the house......I win.

[Nukeman]

Well I'm not a fan of handguns of ANY TYPE and I don't see any use for someone outside law enforcement to have them.

Hubby of course completely disagrees, which didn't stop me from getting rid of the one he brought home. :coffee:

Personally if I'm going to use something for home security give me a shotgun any day. No matter how nervous I am, I won't miss. Of course, because of the kids, our guns are locked up tight and so are not easily retrieved.

Umm no you didn't win!!!! I CHOOSE to trade my revolver for a VERY nice Beretta Gold Rush 45 long colt. I thought it was a great deal. Also when i purchase the Judge 45/410 I can carry ONE type of ammo.. So there!!!:poke:

[Trigg]

Umm no you didn't win!!!! I CHOOSE to trade my revolver for a VERY nice Beretta Gold Rush 45 long colt. I thought it was a great deal. Also when i purchase the Judge 45/410 I can carry ONE type of ammo.. So there!!!:poke:

ya well, we'll have that conversation in private, buddy

[Palin Rider]

Following the logic of the absolutist Second Amendment rhetoric of the right wing in this country, each and every one of us should be free to acquire any and all ordnance in the US military's arsenal.

And by this logic it's blatantly unconstitutional for the American people to be denied the right to keep nuclear weapons.

According to law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000831----000-.html), it's a major felony to even threaten someone with a nuke. How dare the government be so tyrannical! :laugh:

[gabosaurus]

I found it astounding how many of you view the Second Amendment in such a narrow fashion. But in your fervor to defend your right to slaughter as many people as possible, you fail to address my original question. Which is:
Why do you need an assault rifle? Why does anyone need a weapon that fires multiple rounds in seconds?

I have freedom of speech and expression. Does this allow me to make sexual comments about your wife? Can I take lewd pictures of your daughter and post them on the internet?
The answer is, of course, no. Because common sense has to prevail someplace. And common sense dictates that you don't need a Glock to defend your home. Of course, common sense is not extremely prevalent in this forum.

But if you wish to debate the Second Amendment, let's examine it more closely.

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

This amendment has been tested many times in the U.S. Supreme Court. The decisions have added some qualifiers that many have chosen to overlook.

In researching the case of Presser vs. Illinois, the Court reviewed the origins and intent of the original Second Amendment. They decided the amendment was drafted to cover two circumstances
**“for the purpose of self-defense”
**“to make war against the King”
With this is mind, the Court decided to uphold the states' authority to regulate the militia and that citizens have no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes.

Gun nuts have always held that they have a right to own any type of firearm and that the government has no right to regulate sale, distribution or ownership of such.
All federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have found that reasonable firearm regulation is allowable.

DC vs. Heller:

"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."

US vs. Miller

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

I noticed that one respondent in this thread wanted to embrace the Second Amendment as it was originally stated. You might want to think that over. Since this statement was a part of it:

"the Militia comprises all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"

Meaning, if you are a female or underage, you can't own a gun. If you are not physically capable of serving (too old, injured, ill, mentally or physically challenged), you can't own a gun either.
Which would leave a bunch of you with pellet rifles.

[Missileman]

I found it astounding how many of you view the Second Amendment in such a narrow fashion. But in your fervor to defend your right to slaughter as many people as possible, you fail to address my original question. Which is:
Why do you need an assault rifle? Why does anyone need a weapon that fires multiple rounds in seconds?

I have freedom of speech and expression. Does this allow me to make sexual comments about your wife? Can I take lewd pictures of your daughter and post them on the internet?
The answer is, of course, no. Because common sense has to prevail someplace. And common sense dictates that you don't need a Glock to defend your home. Of course, common sense is not extremely prevalent in this forum.

But if you wish to debate the Second Amendment, let's examine it more closely.

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

This amendment has been tested many times in the U.S. Supreme Court. The decisions have added some qualifiers that many have chosen to overlook.

In researching the case of Presser vs. Illinois, the Court reviewed the origins and intent of the original Second Amendment. They decided the amendment was drafted to cover two circumstances
**“for the purpose of self-defense”
**“to make war against the King”
With this is mind, the Court decided to uphold the states' authority to regulate the militia and that citizens have no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes.

Gun nuts have always held that they have a right to own any type of firearm and that the government has no right to regulate sale, distribution or ownership of such.
All federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have found that reasonable firearm regulation is allowable.

DC vs. Heller:

"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."

US vs. Miller

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

I noticed that one respondent in this thread wanted to embrace the Second Amendment as it was originally stated. You might want to think that over. Since this statement was a part of it:

"the Militia comprises all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"

Meaning, if you are a female or underage, you can't own a gun. If you are not physically capable of serving (too old, injured, ill, mentally or physically challenged), you can't own a gun either.
Which would leave a bunch of you with pellet rifles.

The 2nd does not limit gun ownership to militia members...you fail again. BTW, are you EVER going to answer my question?

[namvet]

Why do you need an assault rifle? Why does anyone need a weapon that fires multiple rounds in seconds?

one rapist/burglar one gun. and done

5, or more that's in the gun ????

[KitchenKitten99]

ya well, we'll have that conversation in private, buddy

Hey if you two are gonna fight, I'm going home...

:p

[gabosaurus]

Missileman, I previously answered your question. I am not against owning guns. I merely believe that the type of gun (and magazine, if you wish) should be regulated. Because there is no normal use for owning a functioning assault rifle. I am not against hand guns or hunting rifles.
Read the amendment and the judicial decisions. Don't just do a knee jerk reaction.

As nor namvet, you make no sense at all. As usual. As a mentally unstable person, you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.

[KitchenKitten99]

I think this photo says it all...
2105

[Missileman]

Missileman, I previously answered your question. I am not against owning guns. I merely believe that the type of gun (and magazine, if you wish) should be regulated. Because there is no normal use for owning a functioning assault rifle. I am not against hand guns or hunting rifles.
Read the amendment and the judicial decisions. Don't just do a knee jerk reaction.

As nor namvet, you make no sense at all. As usual. As a mentally unstable person, you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.

I asked you to post what you might consider sensible gun laws and you haven't yet.

[CAPTDASH]

I am a huge 2nd A enthusiast and own multiple weapons of varying types. I have about 5000 rounds or so in my ammo locker. I can hit a target in the eyeball at 500 meters, yet, I have to agree to some extent with the OP. I really see no real need for a person to have a 30 round clip or an assault rifle( but I am about to get another one, just because i want one). Hell if you have to shoot more than 3 or 4 times at one target, you should run, or go to the range and learn how to shoot. Now multiple targets/assailants is a different situation.

Gabo, a glock is a pistol that the majority of ALL LEO's in the USA carry. Personally they are a piece of shit to me. I wouldn't own one, but that is just me. I prefer the Springfield XDM 40 which holds 16 in the mag and 1 in the pipe. Now another pistol I am going to buy this year is the F&N 5.7 x28 mm. You guys do a little research on that one. That is the baddest ass pistol made in recent years, ballistic tip and armor piercing ammo readily available. Let's see why would I have armor piercing ammo, maybe the thug that thinks he wants to rob me has a bullet proof vest on. Many of them do. Or what if the cops perform a No Knock warrant on my house at 2 am in the morning? I am going to kill their asses. If you get pass the dogs in the yard, then you can bet a threat is all I have in my head. The cops have no reason to come to my house, but on numerous occasions in GA lately, the dumbass cops are busting in the wrong addresses and shooting dogs, and people AT THE WRONG HOUSES.

If I give up my 30 round clip Gabo, then the next time around, you will want me to give up my 20 round clip, then my 10 round clip, then you will have me down to a sling shot. I can give that inch, you have already taken so much.

If you were on the side of the highway and the nice man you think is about to help you, rapes you, when you could have otherwise stopped it if you had a weapon, then you are just PLAIN STUPID as Hell for not defending yourself. What if you were picking your kid up from school and you saw a man approaching her to do harm, what are you going to do threaten to call the cops. Please get on board with reality.

When cops are minutes away, my trigger is only seconds away. :clap:

[Sitarro]

I understand why you would want to own a hand gun. I own one, and I know how to use it.
I understand why you would want to own a hunting rifle.
Why would you want to own a fully functional and working extended magazine Glock? Or an Uzi?
Without resorting to Second Amendment rhetoric, please tell me.

http://azstarnet.com/article_c61ecf5c-7dd2-5253-baf2-a1b1f7507043.html

What possible reason would someone want a 1000 horsepower 1.7 million dollar car, they aren't aloud to drive it any faster than a doink in a Prius......... they should be banned because someone driving one and losing control of it killed 3 families including a little girl. Next, full sized pick up trucks, who really needs that much space? Why does someone need to rock climb or water ski or snow ski....... people get killed doing those things, let's ban them.
Sooner or later "they" will find something you like to do and want to ban it because a 9 year old was killed doing it.

[gabosaurus]

I personally couldn't devise "sensible gun laws" because I don't know squat about guns. Except how to fire them. And all of you skating around the issue by interpolating other rights are just avoiding the issue.
If you own a single shot handgun or a rifle with a regular magazine, you can defend yourself adequately. That is my issue, self defense. You don't need to fire 10-20 rounds a second to defend yourself.

My daughter doesn't need me to defend her. She knows self-defense and street drills and is quite good at it. I don't care who you are or how big you are, my daughter could take you down. So could I.
A 10-year-old girl who lives near my sister took the same class. A rather large guy tried to abduct her. He ended up with a broken knee cap, internal stomach bleeding and with one eye partially gouged out.

Owning guns shouldn't take the place of common sense. But you would need some in the first place.

[red states rule]

I personally couldn't devise "sensible gun laws" because I don't know squat about guns. Except how to fire them. And all of you skating around the issue by interpolating other rights are just avoiding the issue.
If you own a single shot handgun or a rifle with a regular magazine, you can defend yourself adequately. That is my issue, self defense. You don't need to fire 10-20 rounds a second to defend yourself.

My daughter doesn't need me to defend her. She knows self-defense and street drills and is quite good at it. I don't care who you are or how big you are, my daughter could take you down. So could I.
A 10-year-old girl who lives near my sister took the same class. A rather large guy tried to abduct her. He ended up with a broken knee cap, internal stomach bleeding and with one eye partially gouged out.

Owning guns shouldn't take the place of common sense. But you would need some in the first place.

Allow me to defend Gabby here folks

I am 100% confident Gabby supports everyones right to bear arms

Gabby feels anyone may wear a short sleeve shirt anytime they wish to

As far as the right to defend yourself with a gun - well Gabby would rather you use harsh language on the criminal and take your chances of living to see another day

[gabosaurus]

I have said previously that I support everyone's right to own a gun. I own one and wouldn't be afraid to use it. But the other analogies are worthless. Nice shirts and expensive cars are going to kill you.
No one has answered why question about why you need 100 rounds of ammo to defend yourself. If I found someone in my house, I would blow their head off. It wouldn't matter if they had a bullet proof vest or not.

[red states rule]

I have said previously that I support everyone's right to own a gun. I own one and wouldn't be afraid to use it. But the other analogies are worthless. Nice shirts and expensive cars are going to kill you.
No one has answered why question about why you need 100 rounds of ammo to defend yourself. If I found someone in my house, I would blow their head off. It wouldn't matter if they had a bullet proof vest or not.

Why are libs like you so worried what LAW ABIDING CITIZENS own? Just like with SUV's Gabby, libs have to try and tell others what they are allowed to own and what they are not

[Missileman]

I personally couldn't devise "sensible gun laws" because I don't know squat about guns. Except how to fire them. And all of you skating around the issue by interpolating other rights are just avoiding the issue.
If you own a single shot handgun or a rifle with a regular magazine, you can defend yourself adequately. That is my issue, self defense. You don't need to fire 10-20 rounds a second to defend yourself.

My daughter doesn't need me to defend her. She knows self-defense and street drills and is quite good at it. I don't care who you are or how big you are, my daughter could take you down. So could I.
A 10-year-old girl who lives near my sister took the same class. A rather large guy tried to abduct her. He ended up with a broken knee cap, internal stomach bleeding and with one eye partially gouged out.

Owning guns shouldn't take the place of common sense. But you would need some in the first place.

If you can't put your head around what a sensible gun law would look like, how is it you are certain that our current gun laws aren't sensible?

[red states rule]

If you can't put your head around what a sensible gun law would look like, how is it you are certain that our current gun laws aren't sensible?

I would love to have Gabby (or anyone else) what law could have stopped the shooter in AZ from carrying out his plan

The same goes with the VA Tech shooter.

Please tell what law needs to be passed that would stop these dirtbags from killing other people

[NightTrain]

I have freedom of speech and expression. Does this allow me to make sexual comments about your wife? Can I take lewd pictures of your daughter and post them on the internet?

The answer is, of course, no. Because common sense has to prevail someplace.

Interesting that you would use that example. It certainly didn't slow you down, though, didn't it?


Glock has either never consider incest, or he has a really ugly daughter.

You didn't have a problem making that statement, in fact you were rather proud of it when you made it to Glockmail... but now you say people shouldn't make such remarks. Hmmmm.

You really have no idea what you believe is right and moral, do you?

[OldMercsRule]

I found it astounding how many of you view the Second Amendment in such a narrow fashion. But in your fervor to defend your right to slaughter as many people as possible, you fail to address my original question. Which is:
Why do you need an assault rifle? Why does anyone need a weapon that fires multiple rounds in seconds?

I guess ya didn't read me post then........ :laugh2:


I have freedom of speech and expression. Does this allow me to make sexual comments about your wife? Can I take lewd pictures of your daughter and post them on the internet?

Of course you can. You are obviously cornfused with a "right" to do something and the potential cornsequences from such an act. FREEDOM IS NEVER FREE. :laugh2:


The answer is, of course, no.

Wrong! See above ^^^^^^!


Because common sense has to prevail someplace. And common sense dictates that you don't need a Glock to defend your home. Of course, common sense is not extremely prevalent in this forum.

Only look down yer snarky nose know it all Liberal mind everybody's bidness "common sense" ya mean? :laugh2:


But if you wish to debate the Second Amendment, let's examine it more closely.

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

This amendment has been tested many times in the U.S. Supreme Court. The decisions have added some qualifiers that many have chosen to overlook.

In researching the case of Presser vs. Illinois, the Court reviewed the origins and intent of the original Second Amendment. They decided the amendment was drafted to cover two circumstances
**“for the purpose of self-defense”
**“to make war against the King”
With this is mind, the Court decided to uphold the states' authority to regulate the militia and that citizens have no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes.

Gun nuts have always held that they have a right to own any type of firearm and that the government has no right to regulate sale, distribution or ownership of such.
All federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have found that reasonable firearm regulation is allowable.

DC vs. Heller:

"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."

US vs. Miller

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

I noticed that one respondent in this thread wanted to embrace the Second Amendment as it was originally stated. You might want to think that over. Since this statement was a part of it:

"the Militia comprises all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"

Meaning, if you are a female or underage, you can't own a gun. If you are not physically capable of serving (too old, injured, ill, mentally or physically challenged), you can't own a gun either.
Which would leave a bunch of you with pellet rifles.

Hmmmmmm....... I guess I need ta read yer opening post. I thought you were askin' for actual examples, not a second amendment debate....... Silly me.


i have said previously that i support everyone's right to own a gun. I own one and wouldn't be afraid to use it. But the other analogies are worthless. Nice shirts and expensive cars are going to kill you.
No one has answered why question about why you need 100 rounds of ammo to defend yourself.

horse poop: Read my post



if i found someone in my house, i would blow their head off. It wouldn't matter if they had a bullet proof vest or not.


Why yes....... yes she did, not only is she goooooood lookin' but smart tooooooooo........ M...MM...MMM :cool:



Speakin' fer messef..... I'm a bit slow ta reply due to the limits of one functional brain cell........ :laugh:



The last thing people who know me would call me is normal.... That said, I own an island fairly near a major metropolitian area, I'm bearish about the prospects fer the economy n' currency n' such.

If I have to take me family n' luved ones to my island ta avoid the hungry masses, (think New Orleans), I need to be able ta execute a layered defense.

I have a high powered rifle with a 3 x 9 scope that some look down their nose Liberals may initially approve (fer hunting), before they wanna take it away fer some snarky reason. That covers the first 1000 yard perimiter. BTW if the bad guys in their boat hear the crack of a high powered rifle accross the bow they may ponder if their objective is worth the risk ;) They wil really think when the second round punctures the bow of the boat........

If they keep cuming after the first two shots, I will get me AK-47 out, (as I have far more shells fer the Chi-com rifle and pinpoint accuracy isn't necessary anymore), since now the cornfrontation is lethal. I should be able ta take out the first boat load with me 75 round drum, butt: if not I have many 30 round bannana clips ta throw their way.

If they make if to the shore on me property then it is either me .357 or more likely me KP 89, (the clip is 17 although I also have thirty round one that stick out the butt of the hand gun). If they get past that (and me dogs), then they can try ta take me one on one, butt: I will never give up and I also have samurai swords et al they can look forward tooooooo.

If all that fails they can have me dead body. :salute:



Yes you are. Modern Liberals, (fascists really), are into Corntrol from Centrol Corntrol. :laugh2:



You and yer kind are the last kinda people who will ever get ta approve each breath of air I fill me lungs with. :salute:



F*** that emotional chit.

I mind me own bidness and I am a very good neighbor as I would also protect you if you were me neighbor, (I'm sure others who live near me will be at me island if things ever get bad). Let's all hope not eh? That said: I will never let ya stick that long Liberal nose into me bidness n' mind it.

Hope that is clear.

Respectfully, JR

In case ya can't find time to review the thread: Gabby!

[bullypulpit]

This is what I remember about the Second Amendment. It wasn't created to protect one's right to shoot deer ... but more of a protection against a tyrannical government.




source: http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

Implicit in your post is the assertion that the US government as it now stands is somehow a tyranny. This assertion is so much bullshit. Firstly, the Obama administration came to power peacefully through the electoral process. Secondly, "well ordered militias" were essential to the nation at that time as there was no standing army. Thirdly interpreting the "free State" of the Second Amendment to be anything BUT the Republic seems overly broad. Finally, government is not the problem as Reagan and those who came after him so brazenly asserted. It is a process whereby we the people come together to solve our problems. Like it or not societies form and give rise to governments in an effort to solve common human problems, for no one is an island wholly unto themselves. We, the people work best when we work together.

[red states rule]

Implicit in your post is the assertion that the US government as it now stands is somehow a tyranny. This assertion is so much bullshit. Firstly, the Obama administration came to power peacefully through the electoral process. Secondly, "well ordered militias" were essential to the nation at that time as there was no standing army. Thirdly interpreting the "free State" of the Second Amendment to be anything BUT the Republic seems overly broad. Finally, government is not the problem as Reagan and those who came after him so brazenly asserted. It is a process whereby we the people come together to solve our problems. Like it or not societies form and give rise to governments in an effort to solve common human problems, for no one is an island wholly unto themselves. We, the people work best when we work together.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/thLaffingChimp.gif

Like Gabby, you have no problem with the right to bear arms. Anyone can wear a short sleeve shirt anytime they want

But as far as your right to defend yourself, BP will tell you use love and hugs with the bad guy and reason with him

[Missileman]

Implicit in your post is the assertion that the US government as it now stands is somehow a tyranny. This assertion is so much bullshit. Firstly, the Obama administration came to power peacefully through the electoral process. Secondly, "well ordered militias" were essential to the nation at that time as there was no standing army. Thirdly interpreting the "free State" of the Second Amendment to be anything BUT the Republic seems overly broad. Finally, government is not the problem as Reagan and those who came after him so brazenly asserted. It is a process whereby we the people come together to solve our problems. Like it or not societies form and give rise to governments in an effort to solve common human problems, for no one is an island wholly unto themselves. We, the people work best when we work together.

A well-armed populace is a deterrent to a tyrranical government...waiting until a government became tyrranical to try to acquire arms and rise up wouldn't work worth a damn, so your premise is the one that's bullshit.

[red states rule]

A well-armed populace is a deterrent to a tyrranical government...waiting until a government became tyrranical to try to acquire arms and rise up wouldn't work worth a damn, so your premise is the one that's bullshit.

Bully would first ask you if Democrats were in charge of the tyrranical government. If the answer is yes he would tell you to sit down and shut up

If the answer is yes Bully would ask you for his gun and as many rounds of ammo he could carry

[Trigg]

Hey if you two are gonna fight, I'm going home...

:p

No worries we went to bed and made up :thumb:

[red states rule]

If you are going to own a gun you need to follow the rules


http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/imaogun600.jpg

[Trigg]

Adding to Red's post. Please do not call a rifle a gun other wise you will be subjected to marching while repeating.

This is my rifle
This is my gun
This is for fighting
This is for fun

[red states rule]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-saf.jpg

[revelarts]

I personally couldn't devise "sensible gun laws" because I don't know squat about guns. Except how to fire them. And all of you skating around the issue by interpolating other rights are just avoiding the issue.
If you own a single shot handgun or a rifle with a regular magazine, you can defend yourself adequately. That is my issue, self defense. You don't need to fire 10-20 rounds a second to defend yourself.

So your saying you agree that for sport and in defense of a free gov't that the rounds and automatic weapons are Ok then.

But it's over kill for typical self defense?

You may have a point.
however people do have a right to make there own determination as to what makes them feel "safe".

Some people have home security systems, others big dogs some put way to many locks on there doors. Some electrify fences, Some have set up deadly traps, others buy, what most might consider, WAY to much gun.

But its a free country, sorta. Some folks here feel pretty strongly on people being able to pick their own bedmates no matter how that might effect community health. (which in the most cases is demonstrably negative). Many here are anti Drug laws as well, but some how they can see both the upside and downsides of legalization and find freedom preferable. But for Guns , somehow its a foregone conclution that sensible mean taking gun freedom away from people.

But here is some food for thought.


Mexico has MUCH stricter gun laws than the U.S. but more murders per 1000. In Thailand Automat and semi automatic weapons are Illegal but they have more murders per 1000 than we do. Switzerland has more Guns per person, of higher caliber military issue ( i assume automatic and semi) , than all European countries, But Less murders per 1000 than all of them except Greece. And Fewer murders per 1000 than nearly every country in the world.

If we honestly take those facts into account it seems we should reassess the idea that stronger gun laws save more lives. And really take a serious look at what other factors contribute to high murder rates. Then see what LEGALLY, constitutionally and culturally can be done to make everyone less likely to be killed. But sadly, the fact is, there's no completely safe place on earth And no way to make it that way.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita


from an older article
http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html

...According to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the homicide rate is lower than in the U.S. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: In 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S. This suggests that lawfully armed citizens in the U.S. deter such crimes. Only the murder and rape rates in the U.S. were higher than in England. The small number of violent predators who commit most of these crimes in the U.S. have little trouble arming themselves unlawfully.

The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."

Sometimes, the data sound too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva. No one seems to be looking at the Swiss example in the U.S., however.

Congress is stampeding to pass additional firearm restrictions in response to the events of April 20, when two students used guns and bombs to murder a dozen classmates and a teacher in Littleton, Colorado.

Yet in 1996, a man who legally owned guns under England's strict regulations went on a rampage, murdering 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland. Parliament then banned all handguns and most rifles.

[CAPTDASH]

A well-armed populace is a deterrent to a tyrranical government...waiting until a government became tyrranical to try to acquire arms and rise up wouldn't work worth a damn, so your premise is the one that's bullshit.

That is why I have a whole lot of stuff. Just wait til I get me some C4. It will be on then. Haste makes waste. It is easier to defend yourself from attack than to fight your way from the chains of your captures.

[bullypulpit]

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/thLaffingChimp.gif

Like Gabby, you have no problem with the right to bear arms. Anyone can wear a short sleeve shirt anytime they want

But as far as your right to defend yourself, BP will tell you use love and hugs with the bad guy and reason with him

Wrong again...as ever...asshat. Gun ownership is a right. As with any other right it entails responsibility, and given that guns can so easily snuff out a human life, the responsibility is equally grave. If you can't live up to, or refuse to accept the responsibility, you can and should be stripped of the right to keep and bear arms. As a hunter and gun owner I choose to accept the responsibility. And for those who accept the life and death responsibilities which gun ownership entails none of the proposals I mentioned earlier pose any problems.

The only ones clamoring for unrestricted gun ownership are those unwilling to accept the responsibilities the right to keep and bear arms entails. Rights without responsibility...A child's conception of adulthood. The magical thinking of children run amok in the hands of adults. Oh, and Red, you don't stop and try to reason with someone trying to harm you and yours. You plant their face in the pavement.

[gabosaurus]

So let me grasp all this fun info. You people actually think owning a lot of guns and ammo makes you safer?
If I sneak into your home and shoot you in the head, it won't matter how many guns you own. You only need one to kill somebody.
Though I am impressed with how totally enamored some of you are with the prospect of wiping out large numbers of people. I don't want to be around any of you when you start having military flashbacks.

[red states rule]

So let me grasp all this fun info. You people actually think owning a lot of guns and ammo makes you safer?
If I sneak into your home and shoot you in the head, it won't matter how many guns you own. You only need one to kill somebody.
Though I am impressed with how totally enamored some of you are with the prospect of wiping out large numbers of people. I don't want to be around any of you when you start having military flashbacks.

Again Gabby why are you worried about what law abiding citizens have in their homes? Libs like your self are obsessed with telling others what they can do, when they can do it, what they can drive, what they can own, and how they should live their life.

I would not worry about running into some of the people here Gabby. I am sure many here do not want to be around you no matter what the circumstances

Simple question to Gabby and BP

Which would you rather be?

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-select.gif

[bullypulpit]

Again Gabby why are you worried about what law abiding citizens have in their homes? Libs like your self are obsessed with telling others what they can do, when they can do it, what they can drive, what they can own, and how they should live their life.

I would not worry about running into some of the people here Gabby. I am sure many here do not want to be around you no matter what the circumstances

LOL! Shit Red, you are a one trick pony, not that was ever in doubt. The whole premise of your comment above is that the rights of the individual trump their responsibilities to, and the rights of, the society they live in. Following your logic, such as it is, to it's conclusion, the individual would stand above any rules and laws established by the society they live in. This is called anarchy.

The fact is that the relationship between individuals and the societies they live in is a dynamic one. Just as the rights of the individual cannot be subsumed to society, that society cannot be subsumed by the rights of the individual. They must continually be balanced.

But you and you fellow travelers refuse to accept this. You want all of the rights and benefits derived from living in a free and open society without the responsibilities living in such a society demands. Unruly children, the lot of you.

[red states rule]

LOL! Shit Red, you are a one trick pony, not that was ever in doubt. The whole premise of your comment above is that the rights of the individual trump their responsibilities to, and the rights of, the society they live in. Following your logic, such as it is, to it's conclusion, the individual would stand above any rules and laws established by the society they live in. This is called anarchy.

The fact is that the relationship between individuals and the societies they live in is a dynamic one. Just as the rights of the individual cannot be subsumed to society, that society cannot be subsumed by the rights of the individual. They must continually be balanced.

But you and you fellow travelers refuse to accept this. You want all of the rights and benefits derived from living in a free and open society without the responsibilities living in such a society demands. Unruly children, the lot of you.

And as usual BP you want more laws that restrict the freedoms of law abiding citizens while the criminals have another law to ignore

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-fpower.jpg

[bullypulpit]

And as usual BP you want more laws that restrict the freedoms of law abiding citizens while the criminals have another law to ignore

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-fpower.jpg

:lol: :lame2: :laugh: :laugh2:
One...Trick...Pony...Red. Your responding to the issues I have raised with dumbass, right wing talking-head sloganeering. You're firing, intellectually, on and empty chamber...your clip is empty. Has been for some time now, but that's a given.

[red states rule]

:lol: :lame2: :laugh: :laugh2:
One...Trick...Pony...Red. Your responding to the issues I have raised with dumbass, right wing talking-head sloganeering. You're firing, intellectually, on and empty chamber...your clip is empty. Has been for some time now, but that's a given.

BP I will try and make it real easy for you and Gabby

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/01-12_11Second_Amend_220110111111902.jpg

[Mr. P]

I personally couldn't devise "sensible gun laws" because I don't know squat about guns. ...

This is common among the left wing anti-gun crowd who want to limit, restrict or ban whatever.

So why, with the self admission of yer own ignorance do you argue the subject?

[NightTrain]

This is common among the left wing anti-gun crowd who want to limit, restrict or ban whatever.

So why, with the self admission of yer own ignorance do you argue the subject?

I think she already answered this, Mr. P:


You have to remember that, as an upper tier university, Cal is very selective and very expensive. You can't be stupid and get into Cal. It is only for elite students.
I attended Cal on an academic scholarship. I got two degrees there.

[Little-Acorn]

Why do you need an assault rifle? Why does anyone need a weapon that fires multiple rounds in seconds?


Q: How can you tell when someone is out to restrict or ban guns?

A: They start asking why you want to exercise that right in a certain way, as though they believed they could justify taking away your rights because you didn't explain your need for them well enough.

[fj1200]

You want all of the rights and benefits derived from living in a free and open society without the responsibilities living in such a society demands. Unruly children, the lot of you.

How is Red not accepting responsibilities?

[bullypulpit]

BP I will try and make it real easy for you and Gabby

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/01-12_11Second_Amend_220110111111902.jpg

:lame2: ...Again.

Umm...Red, there was an armed officer there. But had he drawn and fired on the man holding the gun, he would have shot one of those who had disarmed Loughner.

[bullypulpit]

How is Red not accepting responsibilities?

Red, and his fellow travelers accept their responsibilities only grudgingly, not understanding that these responsibilities are necessary to secure the rights we enjoy. It's kinda like telling a kid to do something they really don't want to do. They whine, bitch and moan and only do it because the alternative is punishment...Or at least the alternative was punishment when I grew up. Red, and his fellow travelers do this because their level of moral development is about that of a 10 or 12 year old, about stage 1 or 2 on Lawrence Kohlberg's scale of moral development.

[NightTrain]

:lame2: ...Again.

Umm...Red, there was an armed officer there. But had he drawn and fired on the man holding the gun, he would have shot one of those who had disarmed Loughner.


So the cop stood there helplessly while unarmed civilians disarmed him? Nifty. I'm sure everyone present was grateful for his quick decision to stand there as the nutjob tried to shoot as many people as he could.

[bullypulpit]

Umm no you didn't win!!!! I CHOOSE to trade my revolver for a VERY nice Beretta Gold Rush 45 long colt. I thought it was a great deal. Also when i purchase the Judge 45/410 I can carry ONE type of ammo.. So there!!!:poke:

Sounds reasonable to me. Beretta makes some really sweet weapons.

<IMG src=http://www.taurususa.com/images/imagesMain/4510TKR-3SS.jpg>


The "Taurus Judge®" is so named because of the number of judges who carry it into the courtroom for their protection. Capable of chambering both .410 2-1/2" shotshell and .45 Colt Ammunition, this amazing combo gun is ideal for short distances - where most altercations occur, or longer distances with the .45 Colt ammo.

And the Judge would make a great companion piece.

[fj1200]

Red, and his fellow travelers accept their responsibilities only grudgingly, not understanding that these responsibilities are necessary to secure the rights we enjoy.

OK, Red and his "fellow travelers" now accept their responsibilities; glad we cleared that up.

Now, how are they not understanding these responsibilities? And how would that aid in securing the rights (further clarification please) we enjoy?

[bullypulpit]

So the cop stood there helplessly while unarmed civilians disarmed him? Nifty. I'm sure everyone present was grateful for his quick decision to stand there as the nutjob tried to shoot as many people as he could.

No, numb-nuts...he was in the store and came out when he heard the shots.

[NightTrain]

Red, and his fellow travelers accept their responsibilities only grudgingly, not understanding that these responsibilities are necessary to secure the rights we enjoy. It's kinda like telling a kid to do something they really don't want to do. They whine, bitch and moan and only do it because the alternative is punishment...Or at least the alternative was punishment when I grew up. Red, and his fellow travelers do this because their level of moral development is about that of a 10 or 12 year old, about stage 1 or 2 on Lawrence Kohlberg's scale of moral development.


I see you've gone where you usually do, make inane accusations of low level intelligence to anyone that doesn't proudly proclaim themselves to be a Moonbat. Looks good on ya, and I would have been surprised to see anything different.

None of us subscribe to you and your pals Gabby and PsychoBabble way of thinking because all of us know where your standard ploy of incrementalism takes us. First it's a few rounds made illegal, then certain clips, then a few rifles, then a few handguns, then all handguns, then all shotguns, then all rifles and all ammunition.

At that point, we'd start hearing about why anyone would need a knife that's has a blade over 3" long - just last week there was a mugging that involved a knife over that length, so just to be safe let's outlaw them!

At that point, I cringe to think of what you Moonbats will come up with next on your crusade to protect all of us. Nightsticks? Baseball bats? Pointy sticks? Slingshots? I'm sure it would only be a month or so until the next Moonbat Crusade was launched.

That's why the 2nd was worded the way it was, to protect against how you liberals get things done with little-by-little erosion. Shall not be infringed.

Until you are able to repeal it, it's a moot point and you're wasting your time. And that won't happen anytime soon, and if you do succeed, there will be hell to pay because your agenda to disarm all of us will be starkly visible to everyone to see.

[fj1200]

Without resorting to Second Amendment rhetoric, please tell me.

Because it's necessary to the security of a free State*.

The real question to me is how to develop "sensible" regulation. How do you keep nut jobs like the Tucson and VA Tech shooters with mental issues from gaining weapons when they both showed signs of instability? How do you do so without creating a police state that compiles information on people with no criminal record? Should the background checkers have access to school records for example?

If you're not able to do that without violating privacy and if gun ownership is open to most then sometimes we need to endure the occasional incident as a result of living in a free society. We've settled into allowing some guilty to go free so as not to imprison the innocent (ideal world of course) then gun ownership may require the same trade-off.

*Question for any constitutional scholars; What does "State" refer too? Is it generic? is it specific? the states in the union? a generic governmental state?

[bullypulpit]

OK, Red and his "fellow travelers" now accept their responsibilities; glad we cleared that up.

Now, how are they not understanding these responsibilities? And how would that aid in securing the rights (further clarification please) we enjoy?

The rights of the individual in a society entail responsibilities to that society in the exercise of those rights so as to avoid harm to oneself or others. In asserting the primacy of the individual above the society they live in, Red and his fellow travelers undermine that society. As needs of a society cannot be subsumed by the rights of the individual, neither can the rights of the individual be ridden roughshod over by society. It is, as I have stated previously in this thread, a dynamic relationship between the individual and society.

By understanding and accepting the responsibilities our rights entail, we secure those rights for future generations. Unfortunately too few of this nations citizens understand their rights, let alone the responsibilities they entail. As a result, we see them being steadily eroded.

[fj1200]

The rights of the individual in a society entail responsibilities to that society in the exercise of those rights so as to avoid harm to oneself or others. In asserting the primacy of the individual above the society they live in, Red and his fellow travelers undermine that society. As needs of a society cannot be subsumed by the rights of the individual, neither can the rights of the individual be ridden roughshod over by society. It is, as I have stated previously in this thread, a dynamic relationship between the individual and society.

By understanding and accepting the responsibilities our rights entail, we secure those rights for future generations. Unfortunately too few of this nations citizens understand their rights, let alone the responsibilities they entail. As a result, we see them being steadily eroded.

Yes, individual rights do require responsibility to society but the rights of the individual should prevail over the rights of the state. Strong individual rights lead to a stronger society. Over emphasis of the state leads to dire consequences for the individual as the individual is expendable to the needs of society. The US has the strongest tradition of individual rights in the world and that has led to the strongest society in the world. Future generations of individuals are better secured by honoring the individual rights of today's generation.

[revelarts]

The rights of the individual in a society entail responsibilities to that society in the exercise of those rights so as to avoid harm to oneself or others. In asserting the primacy of the individual above the society they live in, Red and his fellow travelers undermine that society. As needs of a society cannot be subsumed by the rights of the individual, neither can the rights of the individual be ridden roughshod over by society. It is, as I have stated previously in this thread, a dynamic relationship between the individual and society.

By understanding and accepting the responsibilities our rights entail, we secure those rights for future generations. Unfortunately too few of this nations citizens understand their rights, let alone the responsibilities they entail. As a result, we see them being steadily eroded.

Help a poor soul out here please.

Individual rights are what the country is founded on correct, not safety. "Secure the Blessings of Liberty etc"
when someone is irresponsible with their freedom the PERSON is punished. That's how we collectively retain our rights and protect the society. We don't paternal punish all of society for the irresponsibility of a few.



But your last part doesn't quite flow to me.
"By understanding and accepting the responsibilities our rights entail, we secure those rights for future generations."
what?

In context of the 2nd amendment it sounds like:
By understanding and accepting the responsibilities of Gun ownership ,
that our rights of Gun ownership entail,
we secure those rights for future generations.

Which sorta makes sense but i don't think it means what you think it means..
I think your saying that too many people, In your opinion, are irresponsible with guns. Therefore we have to take it away from everyone, except police and crooks. So Future generations Don't have the right to use guns. But have the right to live in a gun free society which you assume will be safer.

Not exactly how you put it but honestly that's what it seems like your trying to say to me.

Anyway I get that you disagree with some aspects of Gun ownership.
BUt No one has commented on any of my responses earlier.
I thought I posted a few fairly good answers but the points have been completely overlooked by everyone that's anti "some" gun rights.

Though i see they haven't convince anyone to reconsider I'd liked to hear any counter arguments.

[red states rule]

All BP is saying is that we the people who want to own guns to defend our lives, family, and property are to damn stupid to accept the demands of the collective

Like with the results of the Nov 2 election, libs like BP look at the rest of us with distain since we are unable to understand the complex issues and how we need to stop thinking about own well being and think more about what is best for the common good

That sums up his posts and how he views the grwoing majority

[DragonStryk72]

I understand why you would want to own a hand gun. I own one, and I know how to use it.
I understand why you would want to own a hunting rifle.
Why would you want to own a fully functional and working extended magazine Glock? Or an Uzi?
Without resorting to Second Amendment rhetoric, please tell me.

http://azstarnet.com/article_c61ecf5c-7dd2-5253-baf2-a1b1f7507043.html

Ahem, to try another tack, let's try it this way: Because the guys trying to rob my house use extended magazine glocks and uzis, and by the time I even finish hitting 911, they can drop full clips from each into me? Trust me, as former military, rate of fire matters.

Also, you make no mention of what "sensible" is to you.

[bullypulpit]

Yes, individual rights do require responsibility to society but the rights of the individual should prevail over the rights of the state. Strong individual rights lead to a stronger society. Over emphasis of the state leads to dire consequences for the individual as the individual is expendable to the needs of society. The US has the strongest tradition of individual rights in the world and that has led to the strongest society in the world. Future generations of individuals are better secured by honoring the individual rights of today's generation.

With the primacy of the individual, anarchy results. With the primacy of the state tyranny arises. Strong individual rights are but one part of the equation in the formation of a strong society. Rights AND responsible exercise of those rights are the bricks and mortar of a strong society.

If the the unfettered exercise of individual rights...rights without responsibility...are the rule, society collapses into chaos. If society demands absolute responsibility absent rights for the individuals who are its base tyranny is born. The equation is dynamic, and requires constant vigilance on our part to protect our rights and ensure they are exercised in a responsible manner. It is a delicate balancing act, dancing on the edge of a sword.


I see you've gone where you usually do, make inane accusations of low level intelligence to anyone that doesn't proudly proclaim themselves to be a Moonbat. Looks good on ya, and I would have been surprised to see anything different.

None of us subscribe to you and your pals Gabby and PsychoBabble way of thinking because all of us know where your standard ploy of incrementalism takes us. First it's a few rounds made illegal, then certain clips, then a few rifles, then a few handguns, then all handguns, then all shotguns, then all rifles and all ammunition.

At that point, we'd start hearing about why anyone would need a knife that's has a blade over 3" long - just last week there was a mugging that involved a knife over that length, so just to be safe let's outlaw them!

At that point, I cringe to think of what you Moonbats will come up with next on your crusade to protect all of us. Nightsticks? Baseball bats? Pointy sticks? Slingshots? I'm sure it would only be a month or so until the next Moonbat Crusade was launched.

That's why the 2nd was worded the way it was, to protect against how you liberals get things done with little-by-little erosion. Shall not be infringed.

Until you are able to repeal it, it's a moot point and you're wasting your time. And that won't happen anytime soon, and if you do succeed, there will be hell to pay because your agenda to disarm all of us will be starkly visible to everyone to see.

It would seems my "accusations of low level intelligence" ring true.


All BP is saying is that we the people who want to own guns to defend our lives, family, and property are to damn stupid to accept the demands of the collective

Like with the results of the Nov 2 election, libs like BP look at the rest of us with distain since we are unable to understand the complex issues and how we need to stop thinking about own well being and think more about what is best for the common good

That sums up his posts and how he views the grwoing majority

All you're saying is that you can't follow the discussion. If you don't understand it, stay out of it.

[Missileman]

With the primacy of the individual, anarchy results. With the primacy of the state tyranny arises. Strong individual rights are but one part of the equation in the formation of a strong society. Rights AND responsible exercise of those rights are the bricks and mortar of a strong society.

If the the unfettered exercise of individual rights...rights without responsibility...are the rule, society collapses into chaos. If society demands absolute responsibility absent rights for the individuals who are its base tyranny is born. The equation is dynamic, and requires constant vigilance on our part to protect our rights and ensure they are exercised in a responsible manner. It is a delicate balancing act, dancing on the edge of a sword.

So exactly how is a law-abiding person NOT exercising their right to own a gun responsibly?

[DragonStryk72]

I found it astounding how many of you view the Second Amendment in such a narrow fashion. But in your fervor to defend your right to slaughter as many people as possible, you fail to address my original question. Which is:
Why do you need an assault rifle? Why does anyone need a weapon that fires multiple rounds in seconds?

To answer your questions: Why do you need tacos? Why do you need facebook? why do you need debate forums? Why do you need the 98% of things in your life that have no particular necessity attached to them?

As to why people get full-auto weapons legally, well really, most are just collectors, such as the Vietnam Vet who buys an AK-47 because he remembers the weapon that was used against him back during the war, or the gun enthusiast who is collecting the various different types of gloks.


I have freedom of speech and expression. Does this allow me to make sexual comments about your wife?

Actually, yes you can. now, you have to be prepared for whatever consequences come out of doing that, but you actually can. However, this and the next question are both apples to oranges. They're not the same thing. Do you have the right to think bad things about my wife without acting on them in any way? Certainly, it's human nature, just as most of the owners of those legally obtained auto-fire weapons never really intend to use them save in dire circumstances.


Can I take lewd pictures of your daughter and post them on the internet?

See above answer


The answer is, of course, no. Because common sense has to prevail someplace. And common sense dictates that you don't need a Glock to defend your home. Of course, common sense is not extremely prevalent in this forum.

Ah, so now you are the sole purveyor of common sense, you who blame the inanimate objects for the actions of men. You blame the gun in the instance of that 9-year old from Tucson, but in truth, it is the gun owner who is at fault, for not taking proper precautions with his weapons, and for not training his kid how to, and not to handle them.

Your argument is the same as blaming the food because someone choked on it.


But if you wish to debate the Second Amendment, let's examine it more closely.

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

This amendment has been tested many times in the U.S. Supreme Court. The decisions have added some qualifiers that many have chosen to overlook.

In researching the case of Presser vs. Illinois, the Court reviewed the origins and intent of the original Second Amendment. They decided the amendment was drafted to cover two circumstances
**“for the purpose of self-defense”
**“to make war against the King”
With this is mind, the Court decided to uphold the states' authority to regulate the militia and that citizens have no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes.

Ah yes, but then, we no longer have militias, now do we? Even the National Guard is considered a part of its respective branches, and not considered a true militia these days. This is therefore a strawman argument as it no longer applies.


Gun nuts have always held that they have a right to own any type of firearm and that the government has no right to regulate sale, distribution or ownership of such.
All federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have found that reasonable firearm regulation is allowable.

DC vs. Heller:

"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."

US vs. Miller

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Okay, so sawed-off shotguns, which they don't seem to have taken a hard stance on, just saying they couldn't see how it was part of the Second Amendment, and what is just basic sense, that if you abuse your right to bear arms, or are incapable by measure of mental handicap to use one morally and ethically, then you can't own one. That's not proof of your point, and actually it lampoons your own thesis statement, because that states that we already sensible gun laws.


I noticed that one respondent in this thread wanted to embrace the Second Amendment as it was originally stated. You might want to think that over. Since this statement was a part of it:

"the Militia comprises all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"

Meaning, if you are a female or underage, you can't own a gun. If you are not physically capable of serving (too old, injured, ill, mentally or physically challenged), you can't own a gun either.
Which would leave a bunch of you with pellet rifles.

So the only way to act for the common defense is to fire a gun? Ah, gabs, you hung yourself with your own rope on that argument. Now, yes, the male only part would need to be redrafted as we've fairly well dug our heads out of our asses on that one, but you just limited every other person you mentioned with the way you defined them. You made them incapable, not their condition.

[fj1200]

With the primacy of the individual, anarchy results. With the primacy of the state tyranny arises. Strong individual rights are but one part of the equation in the formation of a strong society. Rights AND responsible exercise of those rights are the bricks and mortar of a strong society.

Where?


If the the unfettered exercise of individual rights...rights without responsibility...are the rule, society collapses into chaos. If society demands absolute responsibility absent rights for the individuals who are its base tyranny is born. The equation is dynamic, and requires constant vigilance on our part to protect our rights and ensure they are exercised in a responsible manner. It is a delicate balancing act, dancing on the edge of a sword.

Where?

And you still haven't proven that rights are existent absent responsibility.

[DragonStryk72]

I personally couldn't devise "sensible gun laws" because I don't know squat about guns. Except how to fire them. And all of you skating around the issue by interpolating other rights are just avoiding the issue.
If you own a single shot handgun or a rifle with a regular magazine, you can defend yourself adequately. That is my issue, self defense. You don't need to fire 10-20 rounds a second to defend yourself.

My daughter doesn't need me to defend her. She knows self-defense and street drills and is quite good at it. I don't care who you are or how big you are, my daughter could take you down. So could I.
A 10-year-old girl who lives near my sister took the same class. A rather large guy tried to abduct her. He ended up with a broken knee cap, internal stomach bleeding and with one eye partially gouged out.

Owning guns shouldn't take the place of common sense. But you would need some in the first place.

So then, by your point, you would let someone attack your daughter, because even though you're on scene, clearly you're not needed, right?

[LuvRPgrl]

i understand why you would want to own a hand gun. I own one, and i know how to use it.
I understand why you would want to own a hunting rifle.
Why would you want to own a fully functional and working extended magazine glock? Or an uzi?
Without resorting to second amendment rhetoric, please tell me.

http://azstarnet.com/article_c61ecf5c-7dd2-5253-baf2-a1b1f7507043.html

ummmm, to piss you off.

[bullypulpit]

So exactly how is a law-abiding person NOT exercising their right to own a gun responsibly?

What's your point? Abiding by all applicable laws can be considered as acting responsibly. But if those laws are irrational or unjust we enter a gray area. Is there a demonstrable need on the part of private gun owners to own extended capacity clips? No. When the assault weapons ban was allowed to lapse at the insistence of the NRA and the right wing-nut base we, as a antion entered that gray area.


Where?



Where?

And you still haven't proven that rights are existent absent responsibility.

Follow the logic. If you can. History is replete with examples of the state asserting its primacy over the individual. This is usually in response to individuals attempting to assert their primacy over the state.

[CSM]

Follow the logic. If you can. History is replete with examples of the state asserting its primacy over the individual. This is usually in response to individuals attempting to assert their primacy over the state.

True statement. Unfortunately, when the state wins (most of the time) it's not just individuals that suffer but entire populations. There is a very fine line between "for the common good" and tyranny.

[fj1200]

Follow the logic. If you can. History is replete with examples of the state asserting its primacy over the individual. This is usually in response to individuals attempting to assert their primacy over the state.

Your logic is faulty. I'm aware of the great damage that state supremacy can cause over the population as CSM stated. I asked where in response to your claims of "chaos" and "anarchy."

[Binky]

As far as I'm concerned, the weapon isn't the culprit. It didn't go off by itself. An idiot pulled the trigger. At some point in time, a fool makes the conscience decision to pull the trigger on some poor unsuspecting individual or individuals. Guns are inanimament objects. They only work when someone sticks their finger in and pulls.

[Missileman]

What's your point? Abiding by all applicable laws can be considered as acting responsibly. But if those laws are irrational or unjust we enter a gray area. Is there a demonstrable need on the part of private gun owners to own extended capacity clips? No. When the assault weapons ban was allowed to lapse at the insistence of the NRA and the right wing-nut base we, as a antion entered that gray area.

Your argument holds no water. Tighter gun regulations don't make us any safer nor will they have any effect on the use of guns by CRIMINALS. The CRIMINALS are in the business of BREAKING laws. The problem lies with how we handle CRIMINALS who use guns in the commission of crimes. Make it a capital crime, set up gallows in the town square, jerk a knot in the ass of a few of these animals who have no regard for anyone else's life(which is why I have no regard for theirs btw) and watch the gun crime rate shrink to near nothing.

Trying to blame gun crime on the NRA and law-abiding citizens exercising their 2nd amendment rights is the epitome of stupid.

[Palin Rider]

Your argument holds no water. Tighter gun regulations don't make us any safer nor will they have any effect on the use of guns by CRIMINALS. The CRIMINALS are in the business of BREAKING laws. The problem lies with how we handle CRIMINALS who use guns in the commission of crimes. Make it a capital crime, set up gallows in the town square, jerk a knot in the ass of a few of these animals who have no regard for anyone else's life(which is why I have no regard for theirs btw) and watch the gun crime rate shrink to near nothing.

While we're at it, let's carry out all death sentences within one week, just like China. :rolleyes:

[NightTrain]

While we're at it, let's carry out all death sentences within one week, just like China. :rolleyes:

That's the first bit of common sense you've displayed yet. Maybe there is hope for you after all.

[Palin Rider]

That's the first bit of common sense you've displayed yet. Maybe there is hope for you after all.

By which you obviously mean "let's NOT carry out all death sentences within a week."

Even you aren't that big an idiot that you'd think the opposite.

[NightTrain]

By which you obviously mean "let's NOT carry out all death sentences within a week."

Even you aren't that big an idiot that you'd think the opposite.


Think of it as another Economic Stimulus Plan, and this one will get my support behind your hero in the White House. There's several benefits to it - ending millions upon millions in bogus legal challenges, feeding, housing and guarding them, a boom for the funeral industry, an extra bonus to the companies supplying all the injection compounds & for the local utilities supplying the electricity to power those chairs.

And as Missileman pointed out, the rest of the scumbags around the country will sit up and take notice and violent crime would plummet to zero.

It's a win/win. You can take this idea straight to Obama, and I'll be cheering you on as you bask in your 15 minutes of fame as the "Flamboyant Youngster That Helped Save America".

It'll even give your pal Chris Matthews another thrill up his leg, I have no doubt.

[Palin Rider]

Think of it as another Economic Stimulus Plan, and this one will get my support behind your hero in the White House. There's several benefits to it - ending millions upon millions in bogus legal challenges, feeding, housing and guarding them, a boom for the funeral industry, an extra bonus to the companies supplying all the injection compounds & for the local utilities supplying the electricity to power those chairs.

And as Missileman pointed out, the rest of the scumbags around the country will sit up and take notice and violent crime would plummet to zero.

It's a win/win. You can take this idea straight to Obama, and I'll be cheering you on as you bask in your 15 minutes of fame as the "Flamboyant Youngster That Helped Save America".

It'll even give your pal Chris Matthews another thrill up his leg, I have no doubt.

And of course, we'll never, EVER hang the wrong person. :laugh2:

[NightTrain]

And of course, we'll never, EVER hang the wrong person. :laugh2:

It's for the common good. You DO want what's best for all the rest of us, right?

[Missileman]

While we're at it, let's carry out all death sentences within one week, just like China. :rolleyes:

If they're truly guilty, why wait a week? I'm talking specifically about the no-doubters, and though I'm sure you'll do a creek's worth of crying, there are plenty of them. Our current system of letting these guys linger on death row for 2 or 3 decades isn't working...let's trying something a bit more basic.

[Palin Rider]

It's for the common good. You DO want what's best for all the rest of us, right?

I want what's best for ME, dumbass. That's what democratic government is all about.

[Missileman]

Think of it as another Economic Stimulus Plan, and this one will get my support behind your hero in the White House. There's several benefits to it - ending millions upon millions in bogus legal challenges, feeding, housing and guarding them, a boom for the funeral industry, an extra bonus to the companies supplying all the injection compounds & for the local utilities supplying the electricity to power those chairs.

And as Missileman pointed out, the rest of the scumbags around the country will sit up and take notice and violent crime would plummet to zero.

It's a win/win. You can take this idea straight to Obama, and I'll be cheering you on as you bask in your 15 minutes of fame as the "Flamboyant Youngster That Helped Save America".

It'll even give your pal Chris Matthews another thrill up his leg, I have no doubt.

I'm with ya on everything but the injections...we give our pets injections out of love when we need to put them down. These other animals don't deserve that kind of consideration. Let these wannabe gangstas catch a public hanging and they'll think twice about picking up a gun.

[NightTrain]

I want what's best for ME, dumbass. That's what democratic government is all about.

Oh. I thought you were all about dictating to the rest of us what is best for us.

Well, if you're all about what's good for YOU, then what's your beef with firearms? If you have one and your mom upstairs and her neighbors don't, then you're golden! You'll have ALL the power, just think of it!


I'm with ya on everything but the injections...we give our pets injections out of love when we need to put them down. These other animals don't deserve that kind of consideration. Let these wannabe gangstas catch a public hanging and they'll think twice about picking up a gun.

For the sake of expediency, I'm willing to forgo the rope and inject.

Inject, Baby, Inject!

[Palin Rider]

Oh. I thought you were all about dictating to the rest of us what is best for us.

Well, if you're all about what's good for YOU, then what's your beef with firearms? If you have one and your mom upstairs and her neighbors don't, then you're golden! You'll have ALL the power, just think of it!

In case you didn't notice, I don't have a beef with firearms. I'm just not one of these basement-dwelling Second Amendment absolutists.

Besides, how many times do I have to tell you I already killed my mom? :slap:

[Missileman]

For the sake of expediency, I'm willing to forgo the rope and inject.

Inject, Baby, Inject!

Okay, okay...a lead injection just behind the ear.

[NightTrain]

In case you didn't notice, I don't have a beef with firearms. I'm just not one of these basement-dwelling Second Amendment absolutists.

So you're a basement dwelling gun control liberal. Check.


Besides, how many times do I have to tell you I already killed my mom? :slap:

Well, you also claimed you weren't a liberal, too, so I figured it was part of the troll game.

[gabosaurus]

http://i52.tinypic.com/27xosw8.jpg

[Palin Rider]

So you're a basement dwelling gun control liberal. Check.
:bsflag:

(Doesn't deserve anything else.)


Well, you also claimed you weren't a liberal, too, so I figured it was part of the troll game.

Looking down on the very game you're playing?

[red states rule]

http://i52.tinypic.com/27xosw8.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Guns_Shoot_themselve_120110116050305.jpg

[bullypulpit]

True statement. Unfortunately, when the state wins (most of the time) it's not just individuals that suffer but entire populations. There is a very fine line between "for the common good" and tyranny.

Indeed, which is why the responsible exercise of ones rights includes the necessity of exercising informed, intelligent choices at the ballot box and being politically engaged.


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Guns_Shoot_themselve_120110116050305.jpg

:lol: :lame2:

Red's been pwned! :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[red states rule]

:lol: :lame2:

Red's been pwned! :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

Sure BP

and in your world more laws are the answer

http://www.cagle.com/working/070501/stantis.jpg


Indeed, which is why the responsible exercise of ones rights includes the necessity of exercising informed, intelligent choices at the ballot box and being politically engaged.

Eh that did happen on November 2, 2010 BP

Or did you not hear about those election result yet?

[DragonStryk72]

Eh that did happen on November 2, 2010 BP

Or did you not hear about those election result yet?

They only count when it's the people he wants in office.

[fj1200]

Indeed, which is why the responsible exercise of ones rights includes the necessity of exercising informed, intelligent choices at the ballot box and being politically engaged.

I must have missed the post where you provided examples of individual rights leading to chaos and anarchy. Weird.

[NightTrain]

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss293/NightTrain70/liberals-gun-moral-poster-liberal-d.jpg

[red states rule]

The liberal meida has a fit over a gun show being held in Tucson

The nerve of law abiding citizens buying a gun!!!




ABC, NBC Fret Over Gun Show in Tucson, ABC Surprised Crowds ‘Aren’t Protesters, They’re Customers’

On Saturday, both ABC and NBC ran stories fretting over the Crossroads of the West Gun Show that was held over the weekend in Tucson, Arizona. On ABC, at one point, correspondent David Wright seemed surprised that the large number of people showing up at the event were customers instead of protesters. After relaying that some members of Congress want more gun control laws and cautioning viewers that they should not "hold your breath for them to pass," he continued: "If you wonder why, just check out the crowd at today's gun show. These aren't protesters, they're customers."

Over on the NBC Nightly News, correspondent Kristen Welker noted that it is legal to carry concealed weapons in Arizona, "just as Loughner did last Saturday," as if a person with homicidal intent would decide to obey a law against carrying concealing weapons:

KRISTEN WELKER: Guns are permissible almost anywhere in the state, including many public buildings, and it is legal for people to conceal those weapons and carry them around, just as Loughner did last Saturday.

PAUL HELMKE, BRADY COMMISSION PRESIDENT: Arizona is only the third state in the country to allow people to carry loaded, hidden guns without any permitting process at all.

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/01/19/abc-nbc-fret-over-gun-show-tucson-abc-surprised-crowds-aren-t-protest#ixzz1BYuWrYYX

[LuvRPgrl]

I have said previously that I support everyone's right to own a gun. I own one and wouldn't be afraid to use it. But the other analogies are worthless. Nice shirts and expensive cars are going to kill you.
No one has answered why question about why you need 100 rounds of ammo to defend yourself. If I found someone in my house, I would blow their head off. It wouldn't matter if they had a bullet proof vest or not.

Has there really been an issue with law abiding citizens owning the type of weapon you are inquiring about? If there has been, have they been asked the question.

Personally, if I were to own a gun, it wouldnt be an auto assault gun, so I dont understand why people would want one either, but dont you think you should be asking the people who own them?


And by this logic it's blatantly unconstitutional for the American people to be denied the right to keep nuclear weapons.

According to law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000831----000-.html), it's a major felony to even threaten someone with a nuke. How dare the government be so tyrannical! :laugh:

Is there such a thing as a "minor" felony?

I dont think gun ownership includes any type of weapon, a nuke isnt a gun last time I checked.

WOw, not only have been been pegged as a liberal in denial, but you are turning out to be a real nut case, expecially with your obsession over Sarah Palin.

[QUOTE=gabosaurus;459264]I found it astounding how many of you view the Second Amendment in such a narrow fashion. But in your fervor to defend your right to slaughter as many people as possible, QUOTE]

Pleas show me one post where anyone advocates any desire or right of themselves or others to slaughter PEOPLE.

I have read many posts where it is advocated we may kill, shoot or wound CRIMINALS

[Palin Rider]

Is there such a thing as a "minor" felony?

I dont think gun ownership includes any type of weapon, a nuke isnt a gun last time I checked.

The Second Amendment doesn't mention guns anywhere: it says "keep and bear ARMS." Nuclear missiles are definitely arms, so according to the (absolutist interpretation of the) Second we can't infringe on the rights of people to keep them.


They only count when it's the people he wants in office.

Just like Repubs only talk about what the American people want immediately after they win an election.

[LuvRPgrl]

The Second Amendment doesn't mention guns anywhere: it says "keep and bear ARMS." Nuclear missiles are definitely arms, so according to the (absolutist interpretation of the) Second we can't infringe on the rights of people to keep them.

CLUE to the wacko nut job clueless one:

ARMS is a direct reference to guns,

HOW DO WE KNOW?
1. If you could ask Washington or Jefferson if they intended to include nukes, what do you think their answer would be?

2. Bear arms came about its usage because it referred to the HUMAN ARM, to bear a weapon in that arm, please tell me, can you bear a nuke in your arm?

3. The Founding Fathers never envisioned that wackos would ever even attempt to go so far outside the sphere of common sense to the point of legalism as we now have and even attempt to include such definitions as we have today.
Otherwise, Im quite sure, they would have been more specific. Of course they didnt even have the ability to imagine an airplane, tank or nuke.

4. Nukes are not required to establish a standing military, but guns are, unless you are in some weird third world nation, which we arent.

5. Common everyday people who display common sense, unlike your type, almost universally believe arms doesnt refer to tanks or nukes.


Just like Repubs only talk about what the American people want immediately after they win an election.

Your versions of truth and facts is a lost and wandering beam of light directed towards the far ends of the universe with no basis in reality, no purpose other than to self promote, and of absolutely no value and in fact is detremental to those who love and seek truth.

C'MON, ADMIT IT, YOU ARE A LIBERAL

[Palin Rider]

CLUE to the wacko nut job clueless one:

ARMS is a direct reference to guns,

HOW DO WE KNOW?
1. If you could ask Washington or Jefferson if they intended to include nukes, what do you think their answer would be?

2. Bear arms came about its usage because it referred to the HUMAN ARM, to bear a weapon in that arm, please tell me, can you bear a nuke in your arm?

3. The Founding Fathers never envisioned that wackos would ever even attempt to go so far outside the sphere of common sense to the point of legalism as we now have and even attempt to include such definitions as we have today.
Otherwise, Im quite sure, they would have been more specific. Of course they didnt even have the ability to imagine an airplane, tank or nuke.

4. Nukes are not required to establish a standing military, but guns are, unless you are in some weird third world nation, which we arent.

5. Common everyday people who display common sense, unlike your type, almost universally believe arms doesnt refer to tanks or nukes.

:lol:
No... This is just too easy.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

The Second Amendment doesn't mention guns anywhere: it says "keep and bear ARMS." Nuclear missiles are definitely arms, so according to the (absolutist interpretation of the) Second we can't infringe on the rights of people to keep them.

I find it amusing that the only people arguing the 2nd protects the citizen ownership of nukes are absolutists in arguing the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the ownership of simple everyday firearms by the citizens.

:laugh2:

[Little-Acorn]

I find it amusing that the only people arguing the 2nd protects the citizen ownership of nukes are absolutists in arguing the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the ownership of simple everyday firearms by the citizens.

The people trying to see if the 2nd protects the private ownership of nukes, are the ones who find they cannot dispute its protection of the private owenership of guns; so they hastily change the subject.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

I have freedom of speech and expression. Does this allow me to make sexual comments about your wife? Can I take lewd pictures of your daughter and post them on the internet? The answer is, of course, no. Because common sense has to prevail someplace. And common sense dictates that you don't need a Glock to defend your home.

I hear what you are saying but are the responses to those "crimes" calls to make everybody wear a gag and to restrict everyone to 14.4 modems because cable modems are "child porn pipelines"?

Only with guns is the means to commit the crime preemptively attacked; because someone "might" shoot up a mall, nobody should have a Glock?

That "logic" qualifies as "common sense" in your mind?


In researching the case of Presser vs. Illinois, the Court reviewed the origins and intent of the original Second Amendment. . . .

Presser is never good for anti-gunners to cite (well no Supreme Court case is good for them).

If Presser explains one thing about the citizen's right to arms it demonstrates that the right is not dependent upon the 2nd Amendment for its existence. Re-affirming Cruikshank, Presser said:



" . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, "

I would love to hear your interpretation of the 2nd paragraph. What is this power of the federal government that resides in both the, "prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers" that, EVEN LAYING THE 2ND AMENDMENT OUT OF VIEW, forbids disarming the people?


Gun nuts have always held that they have a right to own any type of firearm and that the government has no right to regulate sale, distribution or ownership of such.

First off, the federal government does not have rights.

Second, no rights are absolute in an ordered society.


All federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have found that reasonable firearm regulation is allowable.

Our discussions should be focused on the decisions of the Supreme Court and lower federal cases that have been decided using the guidance of Heller and McDonald.

Earlier lower federal court decisions on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment are like a band of drunken bums leaning on each other for support but without attachment to the Constitution. In Heller, SCOTUS invalidated that lower federal court mutation of the 2nd Amendment that began in 1942.

You should know, the domestic violence misdemeanor disability is not faring well in the federal Circuits.


DC vs. Heller:

". . . 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."

And that paragraph in the body of the decision points to footnote 26, "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

Anti-gunners (and the government) have latched onto these statements as blanket endorsements of gun control laws . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. In action the feds have been slapped down and sent packing relying on these words to repel challenges to convictions.



"The government has approached this case as though all it had to do to defend the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9)18USCAS922LQ is invoke Heller's language about certain “presumptively lawful” gun regulations-notably, felon-dispossession laws.   Not so.  Heller held that the Second Amendment secures an individual natural right to possess firearms for self-defense;  the opinion's reference to exceptions cannot be read to relieve the government of its burden of justifying laws that restrict Second Amendment rights."

U.S. v. Skoien, 7th Cir No. 08-3770

WHOOPS!!!!


US vs. Miller

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' . . . "

And what does Miller say about the 2nd Amendment protection status of a shotgun with a barrel length over 18 inches?

Have you ever read the case the Miller Court used to form its opinion on Miller's shotgun? Excuse the archaic sentence structure but here is a quip you should love, "so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. "

WHOOPS!!!!


The people trying to see if the 2nd protects the private ownership of nukes, are the ones who find they cannot dispute its protection of the private owenership of guns; so they hastily change the subject.

Well, it is done so that the anti can frame the discussion. All she needs is a "gun nut" to admit that a private citizen has no 2nd Amendment right to a nuke and she has won, the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute and there are "limits" to the right so, Glocks and 30 round mags can be banned Debate over!

Really though, all those histrionic red herrings do is destroy any reasonable discussion of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment in particular.

So this will get her going LOL.

Of course citizens have an original right to nukes and fighter jets and howitzers because no power was ever granted to government to control them in the original Constitution.

BUT,

The government has a good argument that Congress assumed exclusive control over those types of weapons (indiscriminate weapons of open warfare) as they were developed and activated and I believe this argument honors the originalist, original intent interpretive theory.

Here's my explanation.

First, the Constitution directly and exclusively confers to Congress warmaking powers and control of the military and thus military R & D, weapon acquisition and deployment.

Second, in the same clause of the Constitution the most devastating weapon of the 18th Century was directly addressed and the creation, upkeep and use of this PRIVATE CITIZEN OWNED weapon was reserved under the control and permission of Congress. Surely the principle supporting that reservation of power is applicable to the issue of modern WMD's and lesser indiscriminate weapons of war in private hands.

[GUBMINT Cheese]

I understand why you would want to own a hand gun. I own one, and I know how to use it.
I understand why you would want to own a hunting rifle.
Why would you want to own a fully functional and working extended magazine Glock? Or an Uzi?
Without resorting to Second Amendment rhetoric, please tell me.

http://azstarnet.com/article_c61ecf5c-7dd2-5253-baf2-a1b1f7507043.html

Few things are more fun (or satisfying) than squeezing off several hundred rounds of hot lead......:salute:
That said, should automatic weapons be banned from video games as well?......:laugh:

[boycottr]

Future need for protection may require more than 6 rounds, may require more than a 9mm and the defendant and his or her family's life may be in jeopardy. If food shortages arise, this could be a reality in the U.S. It's not out of the question and the more protection, the better. Violence is not acceptable, self-preservation is.

[Palin Rider]

I find it amusing that the only people arguing the 2nd protects the citizen ownership of nukes are absolutists in arguing the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the ownership of simple everyday firearms by the citizens.

:laugh2:

The point was simply to illustrate the absurdity of absolutism.

As you said yourself, "No rights are absolute in an ordered society."

[Surf Fishing Guru]

As you said yourself, "No rights are absolute in an ordered society."

No, but the right to arms is a fundamental right and that designation forces encumbrances on the government. Laws that impact the right have high hurdles to leap to justify their enactment.

When discussing a law that touches a fundamental right the presumption is that the law does not pass constitutional muster. The government must prove that the law is accomplishing a particular need that can not be achieved in any other manner.

Just because it is easier to pass a gun law than actually catch, prosecute and punish gun toting criminals is no longer the way things are done.

Banning 30 round magazines because somebody doesn't think anyone "needs" one is not legitimate exercise of legislative powers.

Where did Gabby go? Tell me she ain't one of them!

[NightTrain]

Where did Gabby go? Tell me she ain't one of them!


Gabby doesn't really debate, she cruises a couple liberal sites to grab an idea or two and presents them here, gets spanked and bolts.

Very nice posts, btw, Surf. I enjoyed reading them.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Gabby doesn't really debate, she cruises a couple liberal sites to grab an idea or two and presents them here, gets spanked and bolts.

That's precisely what I meant LOL!

Thanks for the kind words.

[Palin Rider]

No, but the right to arms is a fundamental right and that designation forces encumbrances on the government. Laws that impact the right have high hurdles to leap to justify their enactment.

When discussing a law that touches a fundamental right the presumption is that the law does not pass constitutional muster. The government must prove that the law is accomplishing a particular need that can not be achieved in any other manner.

Sounds reasonable enough, but is it actually built into the body of legal precedence somewhere? If so, would you mind citing the case?

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Sounds reasonable enough, but is it actually built into the body of legal precedence somewhere? If so, would you mind citing the case?

This is not a doctrine that is established just for the right to arms; it is the the standard of scrutiny test applied to all laws contested as violating a right. It is an evolved criteria that flows from the 14th Amendment's due process clause. The entire doctrine and the levels of scrutiny (protection) is explained as well as it can be by SCOTUS in Lawrence v. Texas:



"Our opinions applying the doctrine known as “substantive due process” hold that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from infringing fundamental liberty interests, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S., at 721. We have held repeatedly, in cases the Court today does not overrule, that only fundamental rights qualify for this so-called “heightened scrutiny” protection — that is, rights which are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,’” ibid. See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 303 (1993) (fundamental liberty interests must be “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 751 (1987) (same). See also Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 122 (1989) (“[W]e have insisted not merely that the interest denominated as a ‘liberty’ be ‘fundamental’ . . . but also that it be an interest traditionally protected by our society”); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (Fourteenth Amendment protects “those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” (emphasis added)).3 All other liberty interests may be abridged or abrogated pursuant to a validly enacted state law if that law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 593 (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/539/539.US.558.02-102.html) (2003).

The Supreme Court in June 2008 decided DC v Heller (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) (2.7mb pdf) and re-affirmed that the right to arms is an individual right but they did not expound on the right's fundamental status.

In June of 2010 the Court decided McDonald v Chicago (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf) (1.1mb pdf) and the Court examined the right to arms under each of the criteia listed in the Lawrence excerpt above. The Court's exposition is 26 pages explaining the fundamental status of the right to arms (pgs 5-31) The Court held that:



"In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

As it stands now the right to own a gun for self defense is a fundamental right. In the lower federal court case of US v Skoien (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/51168BPK.pdf) decided between Heller and McDonald the 7th Circuit used "rational relationship" scrutiny in a case that dealt with the ownership of a gun for hunting.

These Supreme Court decisions are just shaking out in the lower courts and it really will take a decade or more to establish the precise rules to be applied (as it did for other rights too).

Wikipedia has a decent layman's explanation of strict scrutiny (and the other levels linked therein, rational relationship and intermediate scrutiny) HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny)

[logroller]

As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. last line of Lawrence v Texas

I'll hang my hat on that!:salute:

[gabosaurus]

http://i53.tinypic.com/eqv335.jpg

[Surf Fishing Guru]

http://i53.tinypic.com/eqv335.jpg

I reply to you with a precisely on point reasoned rebuttal to your statements and this is the extent of your response?

What a letdown . . .

Gun Control is supported by statists not necessarily commies. Gun Control is supported by the weak minded and emotional who have no knowledge or understanding of the philosophical, historical and legal record of this nation.

Gun Control is the pet project of those who pervert first generation original rights but push an agenda of second generation cultural, social and economic rights as if providing those rights is the governments job instead of securing the citizens inherent and civil rights.

A sad, sad, sad lot Gun Control supporters are . . .

And they should be ardently resisted whenever they gain positions of power because gun rights is the canary in the coal mine.

[Palin Rider]

Gun Control is supported by statists not necessarily commies. Gun Control is supported by the weak minded and emotional who have no knowledge or understanding of the philosophical, historical and legal record of this nation.

Gun Control is the pet project of those who pervert first generation original rights but push an agenda of second generation cultural, social and economic rights as if providing those rights is the governments job instead of securing the citizens inherent and civil rights.

All legislative precedent aside, I have no problem whatsoever with any sane person with no violent felonies in his past having as many guns for personal protection and/or hunting as is practical.

But beyond that... seriously, what's the point?

[Mr. P]

All legislative precedent aside, I have no problem whatsoever with any sane person with no violent felonies in his past having as many guns for personal protection and/or hunting as is practical.

But beyond that... seriously, what's the point?
I donno..variety I guess. That's how I see it anyway. Practical? I think that varies with each individual depending on how active a shooter or hunter they are. Then again some just collect like some folks collect coins etc.

On a related note...have you folks heard about the latest gun control legislation posed in Hawaii? NO sale of toy guns...2k fine and or 30 days in jail.

[Missileman]

On a related note...have you folks heard about the latest gun control legislation posed in Hawaii? NO sale of toy guns...2k fine and or 30 days in jail.

I think it's no sale of toy guns to minors. Not that that in itself isn't a dumb-assed proposition.

[Mr. P]

I think it's no sale of toy guns to minors. Not that that in itself isn't a dumb-assed proposition.
Could be..I missed part of the story. Yeah, it's dumb.

[Palin Rider]

I donno..variety I guess. That's how I see it anyway. Practical? I think that varies with each individual depending on how active a shooter or hunter they are. Then again some just collect like some folks collect coins etc.

Doesn't it stand to reason that such collectors should be required to be more careful than most when it comes to things like theft?

[Mr. P]

Doesn't it stand to reason that such collectors should be required to be more careful than most when it comes to things like theft?
No, it doesn't stand to reason. Everyone I know that has multiple guns protects them from theft with a safe, they have a significant investment to protect. It stands more to reason that anyone who commits a crime with a weapon ( gun, knife, tire iron or whatever) receive a mandatory sentence, death or term without parole.

When those who want to control guns address the real issue of crime we'll be a lot better off.

[DragonStryk72]

Doesn't it stand to reason that such collectors should be required to be more careful than most when it comes to things like theft?

This assumes that those guns are officially stolen, and not simply snagged on the black market for use. Given that there's one for pretty much everything in the world (look up bootleg DVD stores in NYC. Don't worry, they advertise), the idea that the gun store is the proper target is a little insane.

If you see a guy who brings his collection to gun shows, and keeps them all in pristine working condition, brags about oiling them up properly and such, this is not the asshole walking into a school, college, or other public area and blasting away. If you notice, it's pretty much always someone who got their hands on the guns that shouldn't have been able to (Columbine and VA Tech leap to mind.).

As another point, look at where these shootings occur. They have been in places where you cannot take a gun, and this is one of the primary reasons they do it there, so that there isn't someone else firing bullets at them. It's basic instinct at that point, and no amount of gun control is going to get around a determined and disturbed mind that is willing to die just to get a high body count before they get shot dead.

My mom worked as a home health aid and hospice worker for years, usually for some of the more difficult cases. After a number of cases where she was working with some with rage issues, I remember her remarking, "Y'know, I've noticed that none of them seem to have outbursts around someone they know can kick their ass.".

[revelarts]

http://www.libertystickers.com/static/images/gun-control-works.gif

http://www.libertystickers.com/static/images/with-guns-we-are-citizens.gif


http://www.libertystickers.com/static/images/productimage-picture-the-more-corrupt-the-state-815.gif

[darin]

I really see no real need for a person to have a 30 round clip...

...If I give up my 30 round clip
...you will want me to give up my 20 round clip
...then my 10 round clip,


How the hell can somebody with claimed military affiliation confuse 'clip' with 'magazine' so many times? wow.

Seriously - it's like a Soldier calling his M4 a 'gun'. Just doesn't happen too much.

[Patriot311]

I am not saying with any degree of certainty that I would personally want to own an uzi or other fully automatic weapon, however I definitely can see the logic in a law abiding citizens choosing to own one. One of the main reasons we have our right to bare arms is for the protection of ourselves, and our families. Certainly a pistol or a hunting rifle, even a shot-gun will provide a certain degree of protection, yet one must take into account the fact that MANY criminals out there who do not adhere to the law wield much heavier firepower, which would render any standard pistol, shotgun, or rifle, useless. The reality and common sense of the matter is, gun legislation is directed toward those who would adhere to such legislation, those being the law abiding citizens of this country. As cliche as it sounds, there is definite truth in saying that making stricter gun laws is only working toward disarming, or at very least making more vulnerable, the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, those who we shouldn't be primarily focusing on in the first place. Until we find a way to disarm criminals, and take fully automatic weapons, explosives, etc out of their hands, denying law abiding citizens the right to obtain weapons that could better thwart the realistic possibility of being completely out-gunned by a criminal is illogical, and irrational.

You might as well just do away with our second amendment rights, seize all of our firearms, and give them to criminals. The outcome would be pretty much the same, good, law abiding people struggling to remain within the confines of unreasonable guns laws, remaining defenseless against criminals who don't give a damn about the laws.

[Palin Rider]

This assumes that those guns are officially stolen, and not simply snagged on the black market for use. Given that there's one for pretty much everything in the world (look up bootleg DVD stores in NYC. Don't worry, they advertise), the idea that the gun store is the proper target is a little insane.

If you see a guy who brings his collection to gun shows, and keeps them all in pristine working condition, brags about oiling them up properly and such, this is not the asshole walking into a school, college, or other public area and blasting away. If you notice, it's pretty much always someone who got their hands on the guns that shouldn't have been able to (Columbine and VA Tech leap to mind.).

So you agree that there's a liability issue associated with collecting?

[tene18]

This is not a doctrine that is established just for the right to arms; it is the the standard of scrutiny test applied to all laws contested as violating a right. It is an evolved criteria that flows from the 14th Amendment's due process clause. The entire doctrine and the levels of scrutiny (protection) is explained as well as it can be by SCOTUS in Lawrence v. Texas:


"Our opinions applying the doctrine known as “substantive due process” hold that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from infringing fundamental liberty interests, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S., at 721. We have held repeatedly, in cases the Court today does not overrule, that only fundamental rights qualify for this so-called “heightened scrutiny” protection — that is, rights which are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,’” ibid. See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 303 (1993) (fundamental liberty interests must be “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 751 (1987) (same). See also Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 122 (1989) (“[W]e have insisted not merely that the interest denominated as a ‘liberty’ be ‘fundamental’ . . . but also that it be an interest traditionally protected by our society”); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (Fourteenth Amendment protects “those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” (emphasis added)).3 All other liberty interests may be abridged or abrogated pursuant to a validly enacted state law if that law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 593 (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/539/539.US.558.02-102.html) (2003).



T

This source link no longer works, so here is the right one https://nydivorcefirm.com/539-u-s-558/

[High_Plains_Drifter]

This source link no longer works, so here is the right one https://nydivorcefirm.com/539-u-s-558/
And what is the reason for dredging up this 15 year old issue?

[jimnyc]

And what is the reason for dredging up this 15 year old issue?

New member, old thread, new link... usually some sort of spam of sorts.