2nd Am. guarantees gun rights... and should be repealed: Anti-gun advocate

[Little-Acorn]

Nice to see a leftist come out honestly(!) and evaluate the 2nd amendment for what it really says.

As for his call to repeal the 2nd amendment...

Ain't gonna happen. It would be sheer nonsense to try to take away ordinary people's right to own and carry a gun or other such weapon.

Even if the 2nd were repealed, the Fed government would STILL have no power to ban gun ownership or usage. The Fed only has the powers given it by the Constitution... and nowhere in that document does it say the Fed can regulate or ban weapons.

Of course, that doesn't stop a lot of our "progressive" brethern from regulating things they don't have the authority to regulate. But if they want to look for a CONSTITUTIONAL way to do it, they'll have a very hard time finding one, with or without the 2nd amendment.

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200706/CUL20070612a.html

Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
June 12, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - The Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual to own guns and for that reason should be repealed, according to a legal affairs analyst who opposes gun ownership.

"The Second Amendment is one of the clearest statements of right in the Constitution," Benjamin Wittes, a guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution, acknowledged in a discussion Monday. "We've had decades of sort of intellectual gymnastics to try to make those words not mean what they say."

Wittes, who said he has "no particular enthusiasm for the idea of a gun culture," said that rather than try to limit gun ownership through regulation that potentially violates the Second Amendment, opponents of gun ownership should set their sights on repealing the amendment altogether.

"Rather than debating the meaning of the Second Amendment, I think the appropriate debate is whether we want a Second Amendment," Wittes said. He conceded, however, that the political likelihood of getting the amendment repealed is "pretty limited."

Wittes said the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms meant more when it was crafted more than 200 years ago than it does today. Modern society is "much more ambivalent than they [the founders] were about whether gun ownership really is fundamental to liberty," he said.

"One of the things that they believed was that the right of states to organize militias, and therefore individuals to be armed, was necessary to protect the liberty of those states against the federal government," Wittes said. "This is something we don't really believe as a society anymore."

But challenging the Second Amendment on the basis that society's circumstances have changed since the drafting would similarly open up to question all other constitutional rights, according to Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, who also participated in Monday's discussion.

"The techniques that are used to show that the Second Amendment really doesn't have any contemporary relevance are absolutely available to anybody who wants to show that aspects of the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment have no contemporary relevance," he said.

Citing the Fourth Amendment, which protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," Barnett argued, "Sure it was fine that persons should be secure in their papers and effects back in the old days when there wasn't a danger of terrorism and mass murder."

But advocates of warrantless searches could make an "appeal to changing circumstances," on the basis that the Fourth Amendment is "archaic [and] we don't need it anymore," he added.

Barnett recommended that gun control advocates "not favor methods of interpretation [to criticize the legitimacy of the Second Amendment] that you wouldn't want to put in the hands of political opponents."

[glockmail]

I'll refrain from the obvious "cold, dead hands" comment here, and take a different tactic.

This guy doesn't have the basic understanding of The Constitution. We would have the right to free speech, gun ownership, unreasonable searches and seizures, et al, without the Bill of Rights, as these merely serve to affirm these enumerated rights. The government does not grant rights to the people; the people grant limited powers to the government. He'd have to repeal the Constitution itself to legally take my gun away.

[Pale Rider]

The "government" makes all sorts of laws that appear to be illegal and unenforcable, like "taxes," but they do it, and enforce them, anyway. Who are we to stop them?

[5stringJeff]

Outlaw my guns and I'll become an outlaw.

Try and come take them and I'll shoot your ass so fast you won't have time to pray.

[Joe Steel]

I'll refrain from the obvious "cold, dead hands" comment here, and take a different tactic.

This guy doesn't have the basic understanding of The Constitution. We would have the right to free speech, gun ownership, unreasonable searches and seizures, et al, without the Bill of Rights, as these merely serve to affirm these enumerated rights. The government does not grant rights to the people; the people grant limited powers to the government. He'd have to repeal the Constitution itself to legally take my gun away.

Utter nonsense.

Rights are creatures of law they exist only because men use law to make them. Your "affirmed rights" would be useless without acceptance by the community and the community only accepts them because they are established by law.

[glockmail]

Utter nonsense.

Rights are creatures of law they exist only because men use law to make them. Your "affirmed rights" would be useless without acceptance by the community and the community only accepts them because they are established by law.


Reliance upon the laws of nature and of nature's God was not a new position created as an expedient measure to justify independence from Great Britain. Thomas Jefferson verified this by his statement that the intent was "[n]ot to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of." Rather, the Framers were relying upon a centuries' old premise of law.

Sir Edward Coke addressed the subject of the law of nature as early as the seventeenth century.


The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction; and this is lex aeterna, the moral law, called also the law of nature. . . . This law of nature, which indeed is the eternal law of the Creator, infused into the heart of the creature at the time of his creation, was two thousand years before any laws written, and before any judicial or municipal laws.

You have so much to learn yet no apparent ability to absorb.

[Joe Steel]

You have so much to learn yet no apparent ability to absorb.

Apparently, though, not from you.

[glockmail]

Apparently, though, not from you. Obviously, as this is the second time I have tried to teach you on this very issue. Too bad you're so closed minded, even about the obvious.

[theHawk]

So do liberals still deny that the ultimate goal of their socialist beliefs are to undo the constitution?

The road to a dictatorship or otherwise communist government starts with disarming the population, and removing freedom of speech.

[Joe Steel]

Obviously, as this is the second time I have tried to teach you on this very issue. Too bad you're so closed minded, even about the obvious.

I hoped you might have learned something.

I guess not.

[Joe Steel]

So do liberals still deny that the ultimate goal of their socialist beliefs are to undo the constitution?

The road to a dictatorship or otherwise communist government starts with disarming the population, and removing freedom of speech.

You comment reflects a false premise. The U. S. Constitution doesn't declare a personal right of arms.

[Monkeybone]

that is ridiculous. i can understand more gun control, like making it not as easy to get one ( and yes i know it ain't as easy as just walking in). the whole arguement where it is so old is crap. i like how they pointed out that you could say that could be held to any of them, which might happen one day. don't wanna be a conspiracy nut, but that would just be like openin the gates to them making that arguement against more of our rights.

[Little-Acorn]

Even if the 2nd were repealed, the Fed government would STILL have no power to ban gun ownership or usage. The Fed only has the powers given it by the Constitution... and nowhere in that document does it say the Fed can regulate or ban weapons.

Of course, that doesn't stop a lot of our "progressive" brethern from regulating things they don't have the authority to regulate. But if they want to look for a CONSTITUTIONAL way to do it, they'll have a very hard time finding one, with or without the 2nd amendment.

[glockmail]

Even if the 2nd were repealed, the Fed government would STILL have no power to ban gun ownership or usage. The Fed only has the powers given it by the Constitution... and nowhere in that document does it say the Fed can regulate or ban weapons.

Of course, that doesn't stop a lot of our "progressive" brethern from regulating things they don't have the authority to regulate. But if they want to look for a CONSTITUTIONAL way to do it, they'll have a very hard time finding one, with or without the 2nd amendment.

Bingo. The libs either don't understand this, or choose to ignore it. So either they are stoopid or despise the Constitution. Take your choice.

[5stringJeff]

You comment reflects a false premise. The U. S. Constitution doesn't declare a personal right of arms.

Wrong:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Joe Steel]

Wrong:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Right.

The right is declared for "the people" not for individual persons.

[Mr. P]

Right.

The right is declared for "the people" not for individual persons.

That's a stretch, Joe. Obviously 'the people' indicates the collective 'persons' of the United States.

[Pale Rider]

Right.

The right is declared for "the people" not for individual persons.

You can't have "the people" without "individuals." :slap:

What do you think "the people" is made up of? Pies? Old tires?

[Kathianne]

Related, links at site:

http://www.alphecca.com/?p=242




Jeff Soyer on 14 Jun 2007 08:31 am

Ohio: “Stand Your Ground” Bill Introduced

Good! Republicans in Ohio are putting criminals on notice:


Trying to build on success that began in Florida and spread to 17 other states, the National Rifle Association started a push in Ohio on Wednesday that would give people more authority to use deadly force to defend themselves both in and outside their homes.

People who injure or kill an attacker in self defense no longer would shoulder the burden to prove their actions were justifiable under a bill introduced Wednesday by Republican lawmakers. The proposal also would protect people who justifiably kill someone in self defense from civil lawsuits that could require them to pay damages.

Despite the scare-mongering hysteria that pro-criminal groups such as the Brady Bunch try to drum up over these “Castle Doctrine” bills, police and DA’s still investigate all “justified shootings” to be sure they really were justified and there have been no mass-slaughters by residents defending their property in those states that have adopted such legislation.

For those of you living in Ohio, what’s the temperature there? Would Democratic Gov. Strickland sign a bill like this?

[glockmail]

That's a stretch, Joe. Obviously 'the people' indicates the collective 'persons' of the United States. I've read a lot of Joe's posts and so far he's always been wrong. How can anyone be that dumb?

[Little-Acorn]

I've read a lot of Joe's posts and so far he's always been wrong. How can anyone be that dumb?


I was once in a Math class where the teacher described some students who invented an "alternate math". They started with the premise that 2+2=5. It was basically a joke, obviously. But they started to develop some pretty astounding theories. They were able to build up a surprisingly large and consistent body of theory, based on the premise that 2+2=5. They were "proving" new theorems, developing new mathematical operations, etc.

I have a hunch that Joe is doing basically the same thing. Maybe he's basing all he screwy ideas on some premise like "it's government's job to help people" or some other cockeyed notion. Everything he derives from that (or whatever premise he's using) seems logically consistent to him, and in fact does follow logically... as long as you accept the initial premise as true.

He's probably not the only one doing this. Half the country voted for Gore, Kerry, etc., after all.

[glockmail]

I was once in a Math class where the teacher described some students who invented an "alternate math". They started with the premise that 2+2=5. It was basically a joke, obviously. But they started to develop some pretty astounding theories. They were able to build up a surprisingly large and consistent body of theory, based on the premise that 2+2=5. They were "proving" new theorems, developing new mathematical operations, etc.

I have a hunch that Joe is doing basically the same thing. Maybe he's basing all he screwy ideas on some premise like "it's government's job to help people" or some other cockeyed notion. Everything he derives from that (or whatever premise he's using) seems logically consistent to him, and in fact does follow logically... as long as you accept the initial premise as true.

He's probably not the only one doing this. Half the country voted for Gore, Kerry, etc., after all.

Excellent theory. 'Splains why some libs do well in school and they don't all drown when it rains.

[LOki]

Utter nonsense.

Rights are creatures of law they exist only because men use law to make them. Your "affirmed rights" would be useless without acceptance by the community and the community only accepts them because they are established by law.This is not the first I've heard this assertion (<a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=70080#post70080">or one similar enough</a>) from you, and I'm willing to bet it's a favorite argumentative staple for you. It think I'll just make the effort to break this sense embargo you'd like to inflict in the notion of natural rights.

The "uselessness" you speak of is open to debate, Joe. Particularly since "community" is natural to us, the only premise (no community) upon which you can demand such "uselessness" is valid, is not natural to us. Rights are moral principles upon which our freedom of action is sanctioned within a social, or societal, context. So, yes, without other people involved in our lives, the notion of natural rights is meaningless and useless--there is no relevence for rights outside the context of human interactions. You have placed "the law" ahead of "the community," and by implication, placed "the community" before the individuals in it. You would like to put the cart before the horse, and deny that rights naturally exist because they don't exist naturally when humans exist in an un-natural state, i.e., alone. Sorry about your luck Joe, but we're not talking about that.

The axiom upon which the notion of natural rights rests is, to the extent that no-one can make a greater claim upon a human being's life than that particular human being can, human beings own their own lives--you own yourself, and no person, or group of persons, can justly assert a greater claim opon your life than the claim you have on it.

Ownership of your life asserts you can dispose of your life as you wish; it demands self determination. The more and more your self determination is replaced by the will of others, the less and less human you become, and the more like a pet, or cattle you are. Since you must make your own choices in order to survive as a human being, the basic requirement for your life is the freedom to make the best of, and act upon, your own independent judgment, consistent with your own rational self-interest. You cannot live as ahuman being otherwise, so the right to your own life, independent of the unjust claims of others, is the primary "natural right".

Other rights derive naturally from this primary natural right. The case in point being self defense. You have the natural right to defend your own life from the unjust claims on it made by others--be these others individuals, unorganized groups, or the government. Recognition of the right to keep and bear [the means to effective self defense] is recognition of the natural right to defend your own life.

It is appropriate for us to say we have "natural rights." These "natural rights" are not a matter of vote, popular opinion, or the dictates of those predisposed to violence, any more than science or reason are--they are as natural as to us as ant-hills are to ants, swarming is to bees, and pack-hunting is to wolves.

[5stringJeff]

Right.

The right is declared for "the people" not for individual persons.

You have got to be the most dense person I've ever met. Get a clue about identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy)).

People = persons.

[Joe Steel]

That's a stretch, Joe. Obviously 'the people' indicates the collective 'persons' of the United States.

So?

[Joe Steel]

You can't have "the people" without "individuals." :slap:

What do you think "the people" is made up of? Pies? Old tires?

"The people" comprises all the citizens of the United States.

What's your point?

[Joe Steel]

I was once in a Math class where the teacher described some students who invented an "alternate math". They started with the premise that 2+2=5. It was basically a joke, obviously. But they started to develop some pretty astounding theories. They were able to build up a surprisingly large and consistent body of theory, based on the premise that 2+2=5. They were "proving" new theorems, developing new mathematical operations, etc.

I have a hunch that Joe is doing basically the same thing. Maybe he's basing all he screwy ideas on some premise like "it's government's job to help people" or some other cockeyed notion. Everything he derives from that (or whatever premise he's using) seems logically consistent to him, and in fact does follow logically... as long as you accept the initial premise as true.

He's probably not the only one doing this. Half the country voted for Gore, Kerry, etc., after all.

Looks like we've been discovered -- Locke, Bentham, Hume, Rousseau and me. I'll tell them the next time we talk.

[Pale Rider]

"The people" comprises all the citizens of the United States.

What's your point?

What's "MY" point? Do you even have any idea what the fuck you're talking about? You're making absolutely NO sense at all... to ANY of us. Put down the pipe and clear your head, then try again when you can make sense.

[Joe Steel]

This is not the first I've heard this assertion (<a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=70080#post70080">or one similar enough</a>) from you, and I'm willing to bet it's a favorite argumentative staple for you. It think I'll just make the effort to break this sense embargo you'd like to inflict in the notion of natural rights.

The "uselessness" you speak of is open to debate, Joe. Particularly since "community" is natural to us, the only premise (no community) upon which you can demand such "uselessness" is valid, is not natural to us. Rights are moral principles upon which our freedom of action is sanctioned within a social, or societal, context. So, yes, without other people involved in our lives, the notion of natural rights is meaningless and useless--there is no relevence for rights outside the context of human interactions. You have placed "the law" ahead of "the community," and by implication, placed "the community" before the individuals in it. You would like to put the cart before the horse, and deny that rights naturally exist because they don't exist naturally when humans exist in an un-natural state, i.e., alone. Sorry about your luck Joe, but we're not talking about that.

The axiom upon which the notion of natural rights rests is, to the extent that no-one can make a greater claim upon a human being's life than that particular human being can, human beings own their own lives--you own yourself, and no person, or group of persons, can justly assert a greater claim opon your life than the claim you have on it.

Ownership of your life asserts you can dispose of your life as you wish; it demands self determination. The more and more your self determination is replaced by the will of others, the less and less human you become, and the more like a pet, or cattle you are. Since you must make your own choices in order to survive as a human being, the basic requirement for your life is the freedom to make the best of, and act upon, your own independent judgment, consistent with your own rational self-interest. You cannot live as ahuman being otherwise, so the right to your own life, independent of the unjust claims of others, is the primary "natural right".

Other rights derive naturally from this primary natural right. The case in point being self defense. You have the natural right to defend your own life from the unjust claims on it made by others--be these others individuals, unorganized groups, or the government. Recognition of the right to keep and bear [the means to effective self defense] is recognition of the natural right to defend your own life.

It is appropriate for us to say we have "natural rights." These "natural rights" are not a matter of vote, popular opinion, or the dictates of those predisposed to violence, any more than science or reason are--they are as natural as to us as ant-hills are to ants, swarming is to bees, and pack-hunting is to wolves.

Your exposition reflects a false premise. Rights are not "natural." They are created by law.

Sorry.

[LOki]

Your exposition reflects a false premise.Demonstrate.


Rights are not "natural."I already demonstrated that they are.


They are created by law.No. Rights are not contigent upon law, their recognition and protection is codified in law.


Sorry.The unsubstantiated reassertion of your assertion is not a substantiated rebuttal. Sorry about your luck.

[Hobbit]

Looks like we've been discovered -- Locke, Bentham, Hume, Rousseau and me. I'll tell them the next time we talk.

Rousseau would hate your guts. You advocate extensive government interference with the lives of the people, and Rousseau believed all men were better off without societal interference.

By the way, whoever was asking what I meant in an earlier thread by a collective, rather than an individual right, this is what I was talking about. Joe seems to be claiming that 'the people,' as a whole, have the right to guns, but that no individual person has that right.

[Mr. P]

So?

So? That's it. so? So your statement is wrong

Originally Posted by Joe Steel View Post
Right.

The right is declared for "the people" not for individual persons.
As is your claim that rights are created by law. LOki gave an excellent and accurate explanation
No. Rights are not contigent upon law, their recognition and protection is codified in law.

I know the left, socialist in particular, prefer rights be given by the government, it fits their mentality. You know, the mentality that we should be taken care of and our lives directed by the government. Well, that ain't the way it is, sorry.

[Joe Steel]

What's "MY" point? Do you even have any idea what the fuck you're talking about? You're making absolutely NO sense at all... to ANY of us. Put down the pipe and clear your head, then try again when you can make sense.

Your ignorance of our political system is a burden on any serious discussion of the issue. Unfortunately, there's little I can do about that except offer my sympathy.

[Nukeman]

Your ignorance of our political system is a burden on any serious discussion of the issue. Unfortunately, there's little I can do about that except offer my sympathy.
And yet you ignore all other post that refute or dipute your stance... How convienent. You do this everytime you are proven wrong in your assesment..

"Just ignore it, I'm always right". What a waste of time...

[Joe Steel]

Other rights derive naturally from this primary natural right.

Derive?

You mean you make them up.

That's your whole problem in one word. Natural rights are "derived" rights. You're making them up to justify what you want or need.

[Joe Steel]

And yet you ignore all other post that refute or dipute your stance... How convienent. You do this everytime you are proven wrong in your assesment..

"Just ignore it, I'm always right". What a waste of time...

I don't ignore them. I dismiss them. Most are nearly incoherent and not worth the effort of much reflection.

And, I'm almost never wrong by any objective, reasonable standard.

[Nukeman]

I don't ignore them. I dismiss them. Most are nearly incoherent and not worth the effort of much reflection.

And, I'm almost never wrong by any objective, reasonable standard.

(sarcasim on) Ohh great sage please enlighten me as to the difference between "dismiss" and "Ignore". (sarcasim off)

You dont like to debate when someone gives you information or insight that runs contrary to your thought process. The whole point of discussing issues is to learn opposing views not to just hear (or see) your self speak (type). That is the problem with so many oppionated people their oppinion is the only right one. Or so they think....

[Monkeybone]

dismiss and ignore are basically the same thing.

whose objective, reasonable standard? yours? well heck ya, if i line all my arguements, even when proven wrong, by the way that i think...then i am right a 100% of the time. thanks for opening up my eyes! it all makes so much sense now.

[LOki]

Derive?Yes. <a href="http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/derive">Derive</a>.


You mean you make them up.No, I mean derive. YOU mean to level this unsubstantiated accusation at me, but it is logically fallaceuos, and intellectually dishonest. When I say other rights derive naturally from a primary natural right, I mean to say only that they are not primary, but rather contingent upon the primary right--not being primary rights, however, does not make them any less natural as you would seem to demand without any substantive argument in support.


That's your whole problem in one word.No problem for me; the problem is for you, in that the word has a precise definition that does not mean "(I) make them up."


Natural rights are "derived" rights.Well technically, they certainly are. They are derived from the objective nature of the reality of being human. Rights, being derived from the objective nature of the reality of being human, are not less natural because they're derived as such; rather, being derived from the objective nature of the reality of being human is what makes such rights, natural rights.


You're making them up to justify what you want or need.No, you are patently, and without restraint, "making up" false accusations, new stategies for misusing terminology, and arguments without substantiation.

[Joe Steel]

(sarcasim on) Ohh great sage please enlighten me as to the difference between "dismiss" and "Ignore". (sarcasim off)

If the software had a twit filter, I'd use it to exclude postings by certain posters. That would be ignoring. As it is, I see the postings so I scan them and pay them no more attention.


You dont like to debate when someone gives you information or insight that runs contrary to your thought process. The whole point of discussing issues is to learn opposing views not to just hear (or see) your self speak (type). That is the problem with so many oppionated people their oppinion is the only right one. Or so they think....

Of course, you're correct. I should try to assimilate all views of an issue. However, as I said, sometimes the posting is nearly incoherent and I just don't want to put the effort into making sense of it. Add to that the fact that this format, online forums, are prone to straying. No matter how we try to stay "on topic," ususally, or at least frequently, within a few cycles (post and respond,) the original issue is only a memory and we're chasing something we never contemplated in the original posting.

[Joe Steel]

dismiss and ignore are basically the same thing.

whose objective, reasonable standard? yours? well heck ya, if i line all my arguements, even when proven wrong, by the way that i think...then i am right a 100% of the time. thanks for opening up my eyes! it all makes so much sense now.

You've hit on a big problem. These discussions aren't refereed. Each of us can achieve as many knock-outs as we wish. That's why I try to cite sources as much as possible. A citation is the best reasonable, objective standard we can have in this format.

[Pale Rider]

Your ignorance of our political system is a burden on any serious discussion of the issue. Unfortunately, there's little I can do about that except offer my sympathy.

*Yawn*... is this the part where we all laugh, or do you have more of this comedy act?

[Joe Steel]

*Yawn*... is this the part where we all laugh, or do you have more of this comedy act?

Inappropriate laughter is an indicator of mental defect.

I wouldn't be surprised if you laugh quite a bit.

[Pale Rider]

Inappropriate laughter is an indicator of mental defect.

I wouldn't be surprised if you laugh quite a bit.

Inappropriate comments are an indicator of mental defect.

You make quite a few inappropriate comments.

[Joe Steel]

Inappropriate comments are an indicator of mental defect.

You make quite a few inappropriate comments.

Mischaracterization of commentary is a desperate attempt to salvage insubstantial argument.

Your argument is insubstantial and your comment is silly.

[Gunny]

Mischaracterization of commentary is a desperate attempt to salvage insubstantial argument.

Your argument is insubstantial and your comment is silly.

Hey Einstein ...

Feel free to go about educating us ignorant heathens as to why every amendment in the Bill of Rights addresses individual Rights; yet, you would have us believe the Second Amendment was singled out to be teh only one that addresses the Rights of the "collective."

Served. Go away.

[Joe Steel]

Hey Einstein ...

Feel free to go about educating us ignorant heathens as to why every amendment in the Bill of Rights addresses individual Rights; yet, you would have us believe the Second Amendment was singled out to be teh only one that addresses the Rights of the "collective."

Served. Go away.

No problem.

The amendments do what the Supreme Court says they do. Regardless of what the text says, the amendment means what 200+ years of judicial interpretation says they mean.

Now, I suggest you "go away;" perhaps to find an education.

[Gunny]

No problem.

The amendments do what the Supreme Court says they do. Regardless of what the text says, the amendment means what 200+ years of judicial interpretation says they mean.

Now, I suggest you "go away;" perhaps to find an education.

Not even a half-assed good attempt at addressing the question I asked. It appears I already have the education while you pursue an argument that is dishonest at its base.

All the education in the world can't help those of you who refuse to open your eyes and see.

[Joe Steel]

Not even a half-assed good attempt at addressing the question I asked. It appears I already have the education while you pursue an argument that is dishonest at its base.

All the education in the world can't help those of you who refuse to open your eyes and see.

Nor can it help those who refuse to believe what their eyes see.

Let me make it even simpler.

They don't.

[Gunny]

Nor can it help those who refuse to believe what their eyes see.

Let me make it even simpler.

They don't.

In other words, you cannot address why you have to completely change the context of one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights from individual to collective in order to make it work for you?

[Joe Steel]

In other words, you cannot address why you have to completely change the context of one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights from individual to collective in order to make it work for you?

Wrong again. I didn't change anything. That's the way it is. You just don't understand it.

[Gunny]

Wrong again. I didn't change anything. That's the way it is. You just don't understand it.

You still here? And still don't have a response. That "you don't understand" lefty wannabe-intellectually elite response doesn't cut it, nor does it address the question.

Again ...

The Bill of Rights specifically addresses individual rights. It is written in THAT context. Why would the FF's go out of context of individual to collective rights for ONE amendment in ten?

When you've got something besides a deflection for an answer, let me know, huh?

[Joe Steel]

You still here? And still don't have a response. That "you don't understand" lefty wannabe-intellectually elite response doesn't cut it, nor does it address the question.

Again ...

The Bill of Rights specifically addresses individual rights. It is written in THAT context. Why would the FF's go out of context of individual to collective rights for ONE amendment in ten?

When you've got something besides a deflection for an answer, let me know, huh?

Apparently you're not capable of understanding this issue so I'm not sure why I'm bothering with you.

Let's establish some basis for further discussion.

Have you graduated from high school? Did you even attend?

[Gunny]

Apparently you're not capable of understanding this issue so I'm not sure why I'm bothering with you.

Let's establish some basis for further discussion.

Have you graduated from high school? Did you even attend?

:lame2:

Apparently, I understand it FAR better than you since I've had you tapdancing and backpeddaling for quite a few posts now.:laugh2:

[Joe Steel]

:lame2:

Apparently, I understand it FAR better than you since I've had you tapdancing and backpeddaling for quite a few posts now.:laugh2:

There's your problem.

I've answered but you can't understand it. I can't make it any simpler. It's just beyond you.

I'm sorry.

There's nothing I can do.

[Gunny]

There's your problem.

I've answered but you can't understand it. I can't make it any simpler. It's just beyond you.

I'm sorry.

There's nothing I can do.

You can quit pussyfooting around and address my point. None of your so-called answers even comes close.

Your argument is fallacious.

[5stringJeff]

No problem.

The amendments do what the Supreme Court says they do. Regardless of what the text says, the amendment means what 200+ years of judicial interpretation says they mean.

Now, I suggest you "go away;" perhaps to find an education.

So, in your esteemed estimation, what has the Supreme Court said about the Second Amendment?

And, as a bonus question, please identify where in the Constitution the Supreme Court was given carte blanche veto power over the legislative and executive branches.

[Joe Steel]

So, in your esteemed estimation, what has the Supreme Court said about the Second Amendment?

And, as a bonus question, please identify where in the Constitution the Supreme Court was given carte blanche veto power over the legislative and executive branches.

That issue has long been settled; nowhere.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given any such power.

So what?

The Court has taken it. Congress has acquiesced. And everyone lived happily ever after.

[Gunny]

So, in your esteemed estimation, what has the Supreme Court said about the Second Amendment?

And, as a bonus question, please identify where in the Constitution the Supreme Court was given carte blanche veto power over the legislative and executive branches.

The hypocrisy is rather obvious that while he has no problem pushing his out-of-context, fallacious interpretation of the Consitution on us, we are relegated to only what the Supreme Court says.

The fact is, Joe just wants the government to enforce his will on the people.

[Joe Steel]

You can quit pussyfooting around and address my point. None of your so-called answers even comes close.

Your argument is fallacious.

Here's the question you should have asked: can a low-wattage bulb such as yourself illuminate the issue?

Sadly, no.

[Gunny]

Here's the question you should have asked: can a low-wattage bulb such as yourself illuminate the issue?

Sadly, no.

:laugh2:

Still at a loss to address the question directly, huh? It appears to me you couldn't even illuminate the glove box.

[Gunny]

That issue has long been settled; nowhere.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given any such power.

So what?

The Court has taken it. Congress has acquiesced. And everyone lived happily ever after.

I can at least agree with you on this point. The Supreme Court is the de facto final authority because Congress is incapable of reigning it in.

[5stringJeff]

That issue has long been settled; nowhere.

Then the Second Amendment means what it says: specifically, that individuals are given the right to bear arms, and that right cannot be infringed.


Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given any such power.

So what?

The Court has taken it. Congress has acquiesced. And everyone lived happily ever after.

The fact that Congress has not reigned in the Supreme Court (or other courts) does not make it correct.

I wonder if you would be singing the same tune if the court had nine libertarian-conservatives on it.

[waterrescuedude2000]

Well first off guns don't kill people. People kill people and there is nothing wrong with owning guns as long as done responsibly. I myself have a concealed carry permit and carry my Glock just about everywhere I go. That is our right. I think that the people have the wrong impressions on guns and front sight is trying to fight that and doing a good job of it.

[Joe Steel]

Then the Second Amendment means what it says: specifically, that individuals are given the right to bear arms, and that right cannot be infringed.

That's not what it says.


The fact that Congress has not reigned in the Supreme Court (or other courts) does not make it correct.

I wonder if you would be singing the same tune if the court had nine libertarian-conservatives on it.

The Supreme Court, as it has been created by the Constitution, cannot be fixed. The Constitution has made it a political entity and it always will reflect partisan interests. The only thing we can do is start over.

[Joe Steel]

Well first off guns don't kill people. People kill people and there is nothing wrong with owning guns as long as done responsibly. I myself have a concealed carry permit and carry my Glock just about everywhere I go. That is our right. I think that the people have the wrong impressions on guns and front sight is trying to fight that and doing a good job of it.

Commentators on concealed guns, including John Lott, say only 2 to 4% of qualified individuals acquire concealed gun permits. Fewer than that actually carry their guns. By carrying your gun, you have marked yourself as a abnormal individual.

[LOki]

That's not what it says.That is exactly what it says except for the "given" part. The Second Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear arms, and asserts without qualification, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Joe Steel]

That is exactly what it says except for the "given" part. The Second Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear arms, and asserts without qualification, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Sorry, no.

The Second Amendment delcares a right of the People to "keep and bear arms." People is a collective noun so the Amendment does not declare a right for individuals. Had the Founders intended an individual right they would have used a individual noun; e.g. the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms etc.

[Kathianne]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[LOki]

Sorry, no.

The Second Amendment delcares a right of the People to "keep and bear arms." People is a collective noun so the Amendment does not declare a right for individuals. Had the Founders intended an individual right they would have used a individual noun; e.g. the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms etc."People" is plural for persons. In no other portion of the Bill Of Rights, is the term "people" meant to construe anything other than the plural of persons. The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance is not contingent upon a collective notion of "people." Persons do not have to gather together to be the collective notion of "people" in order to posses the right to assemble. Similarly, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures is not contingent upon a collective notion of "people." There is no means to assert that where "the people" have rights, it's not "persons" that are being discussed so much so that "people" have rights that "persons" do not.

[5stringJeff]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


"People" is plural for persons. In no other portion of the Bill Of Rights, is the term "people" meant to construe anything other than the plural of persons. The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance is not contingent upon a collective notion of "people." Persons do not have to gather together to be the collective notion of "people" in order to posses the right to assemble. Similarly, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures is not contingent upon a collective notion of "people." There is no means to assert that where "the people" have rights, it's not "persons" that are being discussed so much so that "people" have rights that "persons" do not.

Spot on, you two.

So, Joe, which is it? Are "people" comprised of individuals, as has been the meaning of the word for centuries? Or are the rights of assembly, petition, and no unreasonable searches "collective" rights?

You miss the fact that all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights. That includes the Second Amendment as well.

[Abbey Marie]

Kathianne & Loki, thank you for showing without doubt the true meaning of "people" in the Constitution. It's scary to think how many people might just believe the misinformation spouted on message boards, especially about such important topics.

[glockmail]

Kathianne & Loki, thank you for showing without doubt the true meaning of "people" in the Constitution. It's scary to think how many people might just believe the misinformation spouted on message boards, especially about such important topics.

Its not simply message boards. It's the public educational system run by liberals with an agenda to make kids into unquestioning robots filled with revisionist history.

I find it very sad. How did conservatives let this happen?

[Kathianne]

Its not simply message boards. It's the public educational system run by liberals with an agenda to make kids into unquestioning robots filled with revisionist history.

I find it very sad. How did conservatives let this happen?

Hey Glockmail, I teach civics. ;)

[Abbey Marie]

Its not simply message boards. It's the public educational system run by liberals with an agenda to make kids into unquestioning robots filled with revisionist history.

I find it very sad. How did conservatives let this happen?

I think we were too busy working hard, raising kids, going to church, and volunteering in our communities, to notice. ;)

[theHawk]

Sorry, no.

The Second Amendment delcares a right of the People to "keep and bear arms." People is a collective noun so the Amendment does not declare a right for individuals. Had the Founders intended an individual right they would have used a individual noun; e.g. the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms etc.







Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Sounds like Amendments 1, 4, 9 and 10 are next on the chopping block for the liberals.

Utterly amazing how libs hate our Constitution and the rights they protect.

[glockmail]

Hey Glockmail, I teach civics. ;) Then you can attest to how your curricullum has been hijacked by the liberal-socialist agenda.

[Kathianne]

Then you can attest to how your curricullum has been hijacked by the liberal-socialist agenda.

actually not the 'standards' just so many teachers are ignorant. The texts don't do a very good job, but your district can get 'free texts' for grades 4-6; 7-8; 9-12 through a organization that believe it or not, is a high quality program funded by Congress:

http://www.civiced.org/index.php?page=we_the_people_the_citizen_and_the_c onstitution

Trust me, the teachers can get the texts, they have to have some faculty member complete some cpdu hours, no biggie.

[Joe Steel]

Sorry, no.

The Second Amendment delcares a right of the People to "keep and bear arms." People is a collective noun so the Amendment does not declare a right for individuals. Had the Founders intended an individual right they would have used a individual noun; e.g. the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms etc.

"People" is plural for persons. In no other portion of the Bill Of Rights, is the term "people" meant to construe anything other than the plural of persons. The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance is not contingent upon a collective notion of "people." Persons do not have to gather together to be the collective notion of "people" in order to posses the right to assemble. Similarly, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures is not contingent upon a collective notion of "people." There is no means to assert that where "the people" have rights, it's not "persons" that are being discussed so much so that "people" have rights that "persons" do not.

Sorry, no.

Your expostion reflects a false premise. "People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art used in political and legal documents to refer to the collective sovereign. For instance, a prosecution might be styled People v. LOki. Do you think that would mean some guys wanted to prosecute you or do you think it might be an act of the government?

[Kathianne]

Sorry, no.

Your expostion reflects a false premise. "People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art used in political and legal documents to refer to the collective sovereign. For instance, a prosecution might be styled People v. LOki. Do you think that would mean some guys wanted to prosecute you or do you think it might be an act of the government?

So the government has the right to petition? Be secure in their 'home'-I suppose that's the justification for them having bunkers and us, not?

[LOki]

Your expostion reflects a false premise. "People" is not the plural of person.The fuck it isn't. This is just a patent denial of reality.


"People" is a term of art used in political and legal documents to refer to the collective sovereign. For instance, a prosecution might be styled People v. LOki.This applies only to the context where the sovereign takes legal action against an individual on behalf of the collective of persons that constitute a particular jurisdiction. The "term of art" is still contingent on the notion that each member of "the people" is a person.


Do you think that would mean some guys wanted to prosecute you or do you think it might be an act of the government? Yes. It's the government acting on behalf of "some guys."

[Joe Steel]

Your expostion reflects a false premise. "People" is not the plural of person.

The fuck it isn't. This is just a patent denial of reality.

Only on your part. You're beaten. You've lost. It's over but you denying your defeat.




"People" is a term of art used in political and legal documents to refer to the collective sovereign. For instance, a prosecution might be styled People v. LOki.

This applies only to the context where the sovereign takes legal action against an individual on behalf of the collective of persons that constitute a particular jurisdiction. The "term of art" is still contingent on the notion that each member of "the people" is a person.

Nonsense.

Search the Constitution for "people" and "persons." The document uses both words in different contexts because the meanings are different.




Do you think that would mean some guys wanted to prosecute you or do you think it might be an act of the government?

Yes. It's the government acting on behalf of "some guys."

Which guys?

[Kathianne]

Only on your part. You're beaten. You've lost. It's over but you denying your defeat.




Nonsense.

Search the Constitution for "people" and "persons." The document uses both words in different contexts because the meanings are different.




Which guys?
Hello? Anyone home?

[Kathianne]

*

[Abbey Marie]

Only on your part. You're beaten. You've lost. It's over but you denying your defeat.

Wowzers. :smoke:

[LOki]

Only on your part. You're beaten. You've lost. It's over but you denying your defeat.Beat <a href="http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/people">this.</a> Not a single assertion that the notion of people is not contingent upon the existence of the persons, each of whom, comprise the body identifed as people. In fact, much, much more of an affirmation of the fact that "people" indeed means "persons", each of whom are individuals.


Nonsense.

Search the Constitution for "people" and "persons." The document uses both words in different contexts because the meanings are different.<a href="http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/people">People</a> is the plural of <a href="http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person">person,</a> and is synonymous with persons. No amount of searching through the Constitution will reveal that it is otherwise.

[Joe Steel]

Beat <a href="http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/people">this.</a> Not a single assertion that the notion of people is not contingent upon the existence of the persons, each of whom, comprise the body identifed as people. In fact, much, much more of an affirmation of the fact that "people" indeed means "persons", each of whom are individuals.

Gibberish.

Try again.


<a href="http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/people">People</a> is the plural of <a href="http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person">person,</a> and is synonymous with persons. No amount of searching through the Constitution will reveal that it is otherwise.

You didn't look?

As you wish.

But wishing but won't make it so.

[Joe Steel]

So the government has the right to petition? Be secure in their 'home'-I suppose that's the justification for them having bunkers and us, not?

No.

The government is a creature of the People. It act in their interest at their command.

[LOki]

Gibberish.How did you put it? " You're beaten. You've lost. It's over but you denying your defeat." And this is nothing but you denying you've been beat.


You didn't look?

As you wish.

But wishing but won't make it so.Ah, transferrence--a cozy refuge for the delusional.

You see Joe, when you actually read the consitution, the terms "the people" and persons are clearly used as plural forms for person--just as indicated by the "gibberish" in the dictionary. When the framers meant to say state, they said "state" not "the people." See the Tenth Amendment to verify that the term "State" and "the people" are different notions, rather synonomous.

[manu1959]

No.

The government is a creature of the People. It act in their interest at their command.

and the people have "voted" to keep their guns ...

[Joe Steel]

and the people have "voted" to keep their guns ...

In a manner of speaking, you're correct. The People, through their representatives, have voted, for instance, for concealed guns.

Interestingly, though, in the only popular referendum on concealed guns (April 1999,) the citizens of Missouri rejected concealed guns. Their "representatives," nevertheless, forced concealed guns onto them. Then, this past session, the vermin in Jefferson City amended the universal armament law by adding "castle doctrine" language to make Missouri a free-fire state despite the clear knowledge the People didn't want more guns on the streets.

Somebody voted but I don't think it was the People.

[5stringJeff]

In a manner of speaking, you're correct. The People, through their representatives, have voted, for instance, for concealed guns.

In our system, we elect our representatives, who make laws on our behalf. So, in that sense, when a legislative body speaks, the "people" speak.


Then, this past session, the vermin in Jefferson City amended the universal armament law by adding "castle doctrine" language to make Missouri a free-fire state despite the clear knowledge the People didn't want more guns on the streets.

Somebody voted but I don't think it was the People.

See above. And the Castle Doctrine is excellent law. Want to avoid getting shot? Don't break into people's homes.

[glockmail]

Only on your part. You're beaten. You've lost. It's over but you denying your defeat.

.... Delusional. :pee:

[manu1959]

In a manner of speaking, you're correct. The People, through their representatives, have voted, for instance, for concealed guns.

Interestingly, though, in the only popular referendum on concealed guns (April 1999,) the citizens of Missouri rejected concealed guns. Their "representatives," nevertheless, forced concealed guns onto them. Then, this past session, the vermin in Jefferson City amended the universal armament law by adding "castle doctrine" language to make Missouri a free-fire state despite the clear knowledge the People didn't want more guns on the streets.

Somebody voted but I don't think it was the People.

not "voting" is voting.....you get what you allow to occur

[Joe Steel]

not "voting" is voting.....you get what you allow to occur

The People did vote. In an April 1999 referendum, they voted against concealed guns. The General Assembly ignored the vote and legalized concealed guns anyway. That includes at least one State Senator and at least two State Representatives who knew and admitted they knew their constituents did not want concealed guns.

Theoretically, elected representatives represent the People...but it's only a theory.

[LOki]

The People did vote. In an April 1999 referendum, they voted against concealed guns. The General Assembly ignored the vote and legalized concealed guns anyway. That includes at least one State Senator and at least two State Representatives who knew and admitted they knew their constituents did not want concealed guns.You fail to mention that the 1999 referendum (Proposition B) failed to pass under the cloud of 2 US Attorneys improperly using federal resources to influence a state referendum.

You fail to mention that opponents to Proposition B found out through polling data that ~60% of the state would approve the propositon using the ballot language that was proposed--that Governor Carnahan's lawyer filed a suit before the State Supreme Court to have the language changed, despite the Governor's pledge to remain neutral.

You also fail to mention that in 2003, a revised CCW Bill made through both state legislative houses only to have it vetoed by Governor Holden--you also fail to mention that this veto was overturned by the elected representatives of the People.

Finally, you fail to note that allowing people to legally carry concealed weaopns doesn't force them to do so. If they really don't want more guns on the street, they can just leave them at home.

[Joe Steel]

You fail to mention that the 1999 referendum (Proposition B) failed to pass under the cloud of 2 US Attorneys improperly using federal resources to influence a state referendum.

You fail to mention that opponents to Proposition B found out through polling data that ~60% of the state would approve the propositon using the ballot language that was proposed--that Governor Carnahan's lawyer filed a suit before the State Supreme Court to have the language changed, despite the Governor's pledge to remain neutral.

You also fail to mention that in 2003, a revised CCW Bill made through both state legislative houses only to have it vetoed by Governor Holden--you also fail to mention that this veto was overturned by the elected representatives of the People.

Finally, you fail to note that allowing people to legally carry concealed weaopns doesn't force them to do so. If they really don't want more guns on the street, they can just leave them at home.

I didn't mention those things because they're irrelevant to the point and they're just desperate spin of trivial details. The People of Missouri didn't then and don't now need or want concealed guns. Only the vermin in the General Assembly do.

[LOki]

I didn't mention those things because they're irrelevant to the point and they're just desperate spin of trivial details. The People of Missouri didn't then and don't now need or want concealed guns. Only the vermin in the General Assembly do.It appears that at least 60% of those folks disagree with you.

And you still fail to note that allowing people to legally carry concealed weaopns doesn't force them to do so. If they really don't want more guns on the street, they can just leave them at home.

[Gunny]

I didn't mention those things because they're irrelevant to the point and they're just desperate spin of trivial details. The People of Missouri didn't then and don't now need or want concealed guns. Only the vermin in the General Assembly do.

The "vermin" would be those who think they are so damned superior they know what the people "need."

[Joe Steel]

It appears that at least 60% of those folks disagree with you.

Nonsense.

First, I don't recall any such poll. I doubt it exists.

Secondly the ballot language didn't really matter. The boiled-down to a vote on concealed guns and Missouri said "no."


And you still fail to note that allowing people to legally carry concealed weaopns doesn't force them to do so. If they really don't want more guns on the street, they can just leave them at home.

The danger comes from those who have guns not from the decision to carry them. More guns on the streets makes the streets more dangerous both for those who have guns and those who don't.

[Joe Steel]

The "vermin" would be those who think they are so damned superior they know what the people "need."


Exactly.

The vermin in the General Assembly decided the People "needed" more guns on the streets despite being told in no uncertain terms by the People that the People didn't need them.

[Mr. P]

...
The danger comes from those who have guns not from the decision to carry them. More guns on the streets makes the streets more dangerous both for those who have guns and those who don't.

JS, would you happen to have a link to reports that prove this statement to be true? All the reports I have read prove it to be false. It has been shown time and again that when a city or municipality enacts "legal" concealed carry laws crime decreases. It has also been shown that restriction of "legal" gun ownership increases crime.

[Joe Steel]

JS, would you happen to have a link to reports that prove this statement to be true? All the reports I have read prove it to be false. It has been shown time and again that when a city or municipality enacts "legal" concealed carry laws crime decreases. It has also been shown that restriction of "legal" gun ownership increases crime.

In fact, no one ever has proven more guns means less crime. The one or two studies which have claimed to that have been shredded and reshredded to the point they're just dust in the dustbin of history.

But I'm not talking about crime. I'm talking about danger. Guns make life more dangerous because that's what they're supposed to do. They're supposed to make killing fast, safe and easy. They do that quite well and that puts everyone in danger.

[Mr. P]

In fact, no one ever has proven more guns means less crime. The one or two studies which have claimed to that have been shredded and reshredded to the point they're just dust in the dustbin of history.

But I'm not talking about crime. I'm talking about danger. Guns make life more dangerous because that's what they're supposed to do. They're supposed to make killing fast, safe and easy. They do that quite well and that puts everyone in danger.

So you have no source for your claim. Ok. As far as guns putting people in danger goes, rethink that, it's incorrect and nothing more than anti-gun spin.

[LOki]

Nonsense.

First, I don't recall any such poll. I doubt it exists.Then it neccessarliy must not have happened.:lame2:


Secondly the ballot language didn't really matter. The boiled-down to a vote on concealed guns and Missouri said "no."If this is really so Joe, then why did the opponents of the proposition sue to have the laguage changed from simply allowing "shall issue" CCW permits for Missourians to legally possess concealed weapons, to include a $500,000 to $1,000,000 threat to local governments?
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Moyesbc60x.GIF">
Face it Joe, the ballot language was changed by anti-gun alarmists to scare people with the spectre of more taxes because the original language, which was a simple referendum on "shall issue" CCW permitting, was going to pass.


The danger comes from those who have guns not from the decision to carry them. More guns on the streets makes the streets more dangerous both for those who have guns and those who don't.This is prima facie bullshit.

If Missourians really do not wish to carry guns concealed, there still is nothing about a "shall issue permit" that requires them to do so; thus, CCW will have ZERO impact on the number of guns on the street if your assertion that Missourians don't want the right to carry concealed weapons on the street is actually true. I just think you know it's not.

Regardless, none of this changes the fact that no one is forcing anyone to carry a weapon as you seemm to suggest. None of your assertions changes the fact that the original proposition was unethically manipulated by anti-gun alarmists. None of your assertions changed the fact that a revised CCW Bill handily made through both state legislative houses only to have it vetoed by Governor Holden--none of your assertions change the fact that this veto was overturned by a compelling majority of the elected representatives of the People.

You're just bitter that you are wrong, you were wrong when your side had to cheat to win because you were wrong, and you're all the more embittered at the fact that you are ultimately proven wrong at the end.

[LOki]

In fact, no one ever has proven more guns means less crime.The actual fact is that one ever has proven more guns means more crime.


The one or two studies which have claimed to that have been shredded and reshredded to the point they're just dust in the dustbin of history.You're confused. The studies that have shown gun ownership to lead to crime have been shredded and reshredded to the point they're just dust in the dustbin of history.


But I'm not talking about crime. I'm talking about danger. Guns make life more dangerous because that's what they're supposed to do.Bullshit. Guns make life safer because that's what they're supposed to do.


They're supposed to make killing fast, safe and easy.For the defender.


They do that quite well and that puts everyone in danger.Correction: ...that puts the criminally violent in danger, unless all their victims have been puposefully disarmed.

[Joe Steel]

First, I don't recall any such poll. I doubt it exists.

Then it neccessarliy must not have happened.

Given the depravity of the gun cult, that's a fair conclusion.




Secondly the ballot language didn't really matter. The boiled-down to a vote on concealed guns and Missouri said "no."

If this is really so Joe, then why did the opponents of the proposition sue to have the laguage changed from simply allowing "shall issue" CCW permits for Missourians to legally possess concealed weapons, to include a $500,000 to $1,000,000 threat to local governments?

Face it Joe, the ballot language was changed by anti-gun alarmists to scare people with the spectre of more taxes because the original language, which was a simple referendum on "shall issue" CCW permitting, was going to pass.

They didn't threaten anyone. The plain reality is that anti-tax and pro-gun are two positions taken by the same extreme element of the electorate.




The danger comes from those who have guns not from the decision to carry them. More guns on the streets makes the streets more dangerous both for those who have guns and those who don't.

This is prima facie bullshit.

If Missourians really do not wish to carry guns concealed, there still is nothing about a "shall issue permit" that requires them to do so; thus, CCW will have ZERO impact on the number of guns on the street if your assertion that Missourians don't want the right to carry concealed weapons on the street is actually true. I just think you know it's not.

You don't seem to understand the fundamental issue. Concealed guns are a danger to everyone not just to those who wish to have them. No one carries a gun, concealed or otherwise, because he wishes to kill himself. He carries his gun because he wishes to kill someone else. For those who don't wish to be killed by concealed gun carriers, opposing concealed guns is a the better choice.

Get it?



Regardless, none of this changes the fact that no one is forcing anyone to carry a weapon as you seemm to suggest. None of your assertions changes the fact that the original proposition was unethically manipulated by anti-gun alarmists. None of your assertions changed the fact that a revised CCW Bill handily made through both state legislative houses only to have it vetoed by Governor Holden--none of your assertions change the fact that this veto was overturned by a compelling majority of the elected representatives of the People.

You're just bitter that you are wrong, you were wrong when your side had to cheat to win because you were wrong, and you're all the more embittered at the fact that you are ultimately proven wrong at the end.

You're right. The issue was manipulated...by the NRA stooges in the General Assembly.

The referendum billed passed the General Assembly in May of 1998. It could have been and should have been on the November 1998 ballot but that would have been a disaster for the gun cult. In November we vote for Representatives and Senators and high-profile issues. Those kinds of things bring-out the highest numbers of voters and high turnout would have rejected concealed guns so badly not even the boldest stooge could have justified raising the issue again.

Instead, the NRA delayed Proposition B until the April ballot which, traditionally, is the most lightly voted ballot of the year. That's because it's usually reserved for municipal and local issues; aldermen, school board members, sewer district members. The average voter doesn't care about those kinds of things and stays home. That was just what the NRA wanted and the stooges did what they were told. The scheduled Proposition B for April. Then the NRA put $4 million dollars into the campaign, trained legions of gun zealots, flooded the state with yard signs and, oops, still lost by 4 points.

Get the picture?

The People of Missouri don't want concealed guns.

[LOki]

Given the depravity of the gun cult, that's a fair conclusion."Depravity" is better reserved for those like yourself who wish to leave decent folks unarmed against violent aggressors.


They didn't threaten anyone. The plain reality is that anti-tax and pro-gun are two positions taken by the same extreme element of the electorate.If this is really so Joe, then why did the opponents of the proposition sue to have the laguage changed from simply allowing "shall issue" CCW permits for Missourians to legally possess concealed weapons, to include a $500,000 to $1,000,000 threat to local governments?


You don't seem to understand the fundamental issue. Concealed guns are a danger to everyone not just to those who wish to have them.You don't seem to understand the fundamental issue. This is your fairy tale, I'm sure you can repeat it over and over--but can you back it up? I think not. The statistics are uniformly against you; the reality of of every gun carried concealed that is never involved in a crime is against you; and the deaths of everyone who was ever attacked or killed solely for the reason that they could not mount an effective defense against a violent sociopath more dedicated to violence than they were, argues against you. You have no argument here, because every one you'll make regarding how dangerous a criminal with a gun is, is also an argument for how dangerous their victim could have been, if not for the legislative results of your faulty reasoning.


No one carries a gun, concealed or otherwise, because he wishes to kill himself. He carries his gun because he wishes to kill someone else.Utter unsubstantiated nonsense. A lie told of everyone who carries a concealed weapon for the purposes of self defense, or the defense of others.


For those who don't wish to be killed by concealed gun carriers, opposing concealed guns is a the better choice.Opposing concealed guns will not prevent that exact tiny minority of people you're so afraid of, from carrying concealed weapons--opposing concealed carry only manages to to oppose decent folks from carrying concealed weapons to effectivly defend themselves.<blockquote><i>"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime."
--Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson</i></blockquote>Get it?


You're right. The issue was manipulated...by the NRA stooges in the General Assembly.Whatever influence the NRA may have had, it wasn't in violation of the Hatch Act, which is something you can't say for the anti-gun alarmists.


That was just what the NRA wanted and the stooges did what they were told. The scheduled Proposition B for April. Then the NRA put $4 million dollars into the campaign, trained legions of gun zealots, flooded the state with yard signs and, oops, still lost by 4 points. Again, whatever influence the NRA had, it wasn't in violation of the Hatch Act, which is still something you can't say for the anti-gun alarmists.


The People of Missouri don't want concealed guns.There is nothing about a CCW permit that requires any Missourian to carry a concealed weapon--NOTHING. There is nothing that any decent person has to worry about regarding other decent folks lawfully having concealed weapons--NOTHING. The only people who have an actual vested interest in making illegal the concealed carrying of weapons for decent, law abiding folks, are those who intend to do violence upon others--PERIOD.