156 replies to this topic

[AsteroidX]

Actually in Colonial times it was common practice to trade male Native slaves for West Indian slaves. Not sure if they were Egyptian. But even Irish would sell themselves into slavery to gain passage to the Americas. Different times back then fer sure.

Gun owners should be paranoid. Look whats going on in America !!

[ninjadude]

AsteroidX, on 15 January 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

Gun owners should be paranoid. Look whats going on in America !!

what exactly? and how in the world will your guns make any difference whatsoever.

[joc]

ninjadude, on 16 January 2013 - 02:35 AM, said:

what exactly? and how in the world will your guns make any difference whatsoever.

This has nothing to do with guns.  It has to do with the Constitution which guarantees Americans the right to possess and bear arms.  That is the whole enchilada.  Whether guns are good or bad or deadly or whatever is totally irrelevant.  The right to possess and bear arms shall not be infringed.  I don't really see how that could be any clearer.  I guess it's that little part...shall not be infringed that has everyone in an uproar.

[socrates.junior]

The people who are killing people with guns aren't the people mentioned in the article. It even says that. So what the hell does it matter to you, ninja, if someone has a gun or not. If they're not bothering you, you have no right to dictate their lives to them. I know, it would put a damper on the moral superiority you're convinced you have. Well big whoop. Get over it, and get out of other people's lives.

If I had a gun, it wouldn't be used to kill people.

Enough said.

[Stellar]

joc, on 16 January 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

This has nothing to do with guns.  It has to do with the Constitution which guarantees Americans the right to possess and bear arms.  That is the whole enchilada.  Whether guns are good or bad or deadly or whatever is totally irrelevant.  The right to possess and bear arms shall not be infringed.  I don't really see how that could be any clearer.  I guess it's that little part...shall not be infringed that has everyone in an uproar.

Joc, the difficult thing to understand is what is considered "infringement" in the constitution. It seems that any action at all on guns would be considered infringement by the one side, effectively ceasing any sort of healthy discussion and problem solving.

[Stellar]

socrates.junior, on 16 January 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

The people who are killing people with guns aren't the people mentioned in the article. It even says that. So what the hell does it matter to you, ninja, if someone has a gun or not. If they're not bothering you, you have no right to dictate their lives to them. I know, it would put a damper on the moral superiority you're convinced you have. Well big whoop. Get over it, and get out of other people's lives.

If I had a gun, it wouldn't be used to kill people.

Enough said.

If you had a gun, it wouldn't be used to kill people. That's great Socrates. If Joe Dirtbag got a gun though, signs point to him potentially using it to harm others. The idea is to allow you, Socrates, to have the weapon, and make it more difficult for Joe Dirtbag to get one.

[joc]

Stellar, on 16 January 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

Joc, the difficult thing to understand is what is considered "infringement" in the constitution. It seems that any action at all on guns would be considered infringement by the one side, effectively ceasing any sort of healthy discussion and problem solving.

What is difficult to understand Stellar?  It is very clear...

Quote

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.

the right shall not be infringed.
Telling people what arms they can and cannot bear infringes that right.  Passing laws restricting in anyway the arms that people may bear is an infringement.   Laws that say your arms must be registered is an infringement.  Limiting the sales of arms is an infringement.  Laws that say you can bear arms only if concealed is an infringement.

The real problem meanwhile remains ignored...how about banning gangs?
A health discussion and problem solving has nothing to do with guns...it has to do with the people who use guns in crimes, and how those crimes take forever to go to court and then how lenient the sentences are for those criminals who use guns.  I'll say again, in the older days, we hung horse thieves and murderers, in public, soon after conviction.  And guess what, there weren't really that many horse thieves and murderers to hang.  Today, everyday, in every city, murders occur. A lot of them by people who have already done time in prison.  We need to start executing our criminals, in public, so the public can link the crime to the criminal and to the punishment.

In other words...leave me and my guns alone and start dealing with the criminal aspect of our society that uses them~!!!!!!!!!

Edited by joc, 16 January 2013 - 03:50 PM.

[questionmark]

joc, on 16 January 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

What is difficult to understand Stellar?  It is very clear...
the right shall not be infringed.
Telling people what arms they can and cannot bear infringes that right.  Passing laws restricting in anyway the arms that people may bear is an infringement.   Laws that say your arms must be registered is an infringement.  Limiting the sales of arms is an infringement.  Laws that say you can bear arms only if concealed is an infringement.

The real problem meanwhile remains ignored...how about banning gangs?

so, not having the money to buy a gun or an atomic bomb is also an infringement? And why do we stop at peashooters, how about F-16, M1 Abrams and 15" howitzers?

[Stellar]

Quote

Telling people what arms they can and cannot bear infringes that right.  

Indeed. Telling people which arms they can or can not does infringe that right. There are many more types of "arms" than guns that exist today though. Do you believe people should have a right to own all of them, or do you believe that a line must be drawn somewhere?

And what about preventing certain people from buying guns, such as convicted criminals? Do you agree with that or disagree with it?

Quote

Laws that say your arms must be registered is an infringement.  Limiting the sales of arms is an infringement.  

Why is it an infringement? In and of itself, registering a gun doesn't prevent you from 'bearing' it, so why is it an infringement upon that right?

Limiting the sales brings me back to my above point: do you believe that a criminal should be allowed to buy a gun?

And what would you say about mandating that guns are kept in a safe or firearms cabinet when not under your direct control. Would that also be an infringement? Why?

See, I think the trouble a lot of us are having is seeing why these things are considered an infringement. You and others simply tell us that they are, but no one tells us why they are.

[joc]

Quote

Indeed. Telling people which arms they can or can not does infringe that right. There are many more types of "arms" than guns that exist today though. Do you believe people should have a right to own all of them, or do you believe that a line must be drawn somewhere?

I believe that people have a right to own all of them, as many as they wish of whatever they wish.  The only arms that 'people' cannot bear are WMDs of any kind.  The specific 'arms' talked about in the 2nd amendment however are guns.  We know this because of the first part of the statement: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.
That being said...what does that really mean?  ...a well regulated Militia...   Regulated in what way and by whom?  Does that regulation mean regulating the types of weapons the Militia may possess?  Or does that simply mean that if the people decided they needed to form a Militia to secure their freedoms from a tyrannical government that they needed to be able to have weapons in their possession to do that?  I default to the latter.

Quote

And what about preventing certain people from buying guns, such as convicted criminals? Do you agree with that or disagree with it?

Convicted criminals already have many of their rights stripped as a result of conviction...the right to vote for instance.  The right to live wherever they choose...another example.  The 'people' are not convicted criminals.   It specifically says, the people, not people or all people.

Quote

Why is it an infringement? In and of itself, registering a gun doesn't prevent you from 'bearing' it, so why is it an infringement upon that right?

Because if I already possess the freedom to have the weapon, it is not any of the governments business at all that I have the weapon, therefore the whole idea of registration is moot.  The reason for registration is so the government can know who has weapons and what kind.  Also, if you choose to not register a weapon, then you are in violation of the law...there is nothing in the second amendment that allows for the government to know that you possess weapons.  In fact, the first sentence again: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...if the government knows who and what weapons the population possesses and can confiscate those weapons if they are not registered reduces greatly the chances of having a 'well regulated militia'.

Quote

And what would you say about mandating that guns are kept in a safe or firearms cabinet when not under your direct control. Would that also be an infringement? Why?

Yes.  The reason it would be an infringement is because any laws that cannot be enforced are moot.  Therefore, in order to have an effective law, the government would need to be able to come into your home, at their discretion, and ask to see that your weapons are indeed locked in a safe.   If the idea that firearms need to be kept under lock and key (which, I wholeheartedly agree with and mine of course are)is a good idea, because we don't want four year olds shooting Mommy...then we should enact legislation to punish those who's weapons are used in such a fashion.  I.E.  If your four year old shoots Mommy you are liable for negligent homicide...which is probably a law already anyway.

Quote

See, I think the trouble a lot of us are having is seeing why these things are considered an infringement. You and others simply tell us that they are, but no one tells us why they are.

I think the problem is that a lot of you are seeing the end result of violence where criminals used guns and are fed up with it, as am I.  The solution is not to regulate guns...the solution is to revamp our judicial system.

Edited by joc, 16 January 2013 - 05:03 PM.

[Stellar]

Quote

I believe that people have a right to own all of them, as many as they wish of whatever they wish.  The only arms that 'people' cannot bear are WMDs of any kind.  The specific 'arms' talked about in the 2nd amendment however are guns.  We know this because of the first part of the statement: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

Why aren't they allowed to have wmds? Nuclear arms? The 2nd amendment did not impose limitations on this.

In fact, the guns of the 2nd amendment were muskets, were they not? So in either case there is some interpretation as to where the line is to be drawn.

Quote

That being said...what does that really mean?  ...a well regulated Militia...   Regulated in what way and by whom?  Does that regulation mean regulating the types of weapons the Militia may possess?  Or does that simply mean that if the people decided they needed to form a Militia to secure their freedoms from a tyrannical government that they needed to be able to have weapons in their possession to do that?  I default to the latter.

If I'm not mistaken, the FF wanted to abolish free standing armies and have the state protected by militias---citizen soldiers. Well regulated would then mean that they do receive periodic training and have a rank structure.

Quote

Convicted criminals already have many of their rights stripped as a result of conviction...the right to vote for instance.  The right to live wherever they choose...another example.  The 'people' are not convicted criminals.   It specifically says, the people, not people or all people.

I agree with you, the people are not convicted criminals. You do not believe its an infringement upon the 2nd amendment to prevent criminals from purchasing guns. Good. So if there are loopholes by which a criminal can easily purchase or obtain a gun, they should be closed, correct? This would not infringe upon the innocent peoples right to bear arms, but would prevent criminals from obtaining guns so easily, wouldn't you agree?

Quote

Because if I already possess the freedom to have the weapon, it is not any of the governments business at all that I have the weapon, therefore the whole idea of registration is moot

You don't want the government knowing you have a gun. Fine. How is that an infringement upon your right to own a gun though? Them knowing you have a gun doesn't prevent you from having one.

Quote

Yes.  The reason it would be an infringement is because any laws that cannot be enforced are moot.

you say the law can not be enforced and is moot. Fine. But how does the unenforced law make it an infringement upon the 2nd amendment? Rather than arguing about the effectiveness of the laws at this point, I first want to understand why people say they're an infringement upon the 2nd amendment.

Quote

The solution is not to regulate guns...the solution is to revamp our judicial system.      

I think that the most effective solution is to do both.

[socrates.junior]

Stellar, on 16 January 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

If you had a gun, it wouldn't be used to kill people. That's great Socrates. If Joe Dirtbag got a gun though, signs point to him potentially using it to harm others. The idea is to allow you, Socrates, to have the weapon, and make it more difficult for Joe Dirtbag to get one.

No, that's not the point of the article. The point of the article is to demonstrate moral superiority over people who own guns. And 99 percent of the people mentioned in the article are not using their guns for violence. And Joe Dirtbag could give several less ****s about gun regulations...because he is Joe Dirtbag. The people who gun regulations affect are law-abiding gun owners.

[Yamato]

Why aren't they allowed to have nukes and WMDs and the lot, indeed!   That's a great question.   That's how this country is supposed to be.  Militias that are raised into armies, not perpetual standing armies and trillions of the peoples' dollars being spent on this global nation building police state.   The founders were prescient enough to see this tendency ahead of time and put safeguards into the law to prevent it.  And we let our bureaucrats run wild with their dream-speak of "superpower" and "exceptionalism".   How could anyone be so gullible to trust them?

[joc]

Quote

Why aren't they allowed to have wmds? Nuclear arms? The 2nd amendment did not impose limitations on this.

In fact, the guns of the 2nd amendment were muskets, were they not? So in either case there is some interpretation as to where the line is to be drawn.

Seriously?  There were no nuclear weapons in the 1700s.  ...and there were no automatic weapons either...but...it is still an extension of the original musket whereas Nuclear Weapons and Mustard Gas for instance were not even in existence.
Also, it is just ludicrous to even think that a well regulated militia, should one be formed, would be effective at all against its own government because it would be destroying itself as well.

Quote

If I'm not mistaken, the FF wanted to abolish free standing armies and have the state protected by militias---citizen soldiers. Well regulated would then mean that they do receive periodic training and have a rank structure.

The 2A doesn't mention any of that.

Quote

I agree with you, the people are not convicted criminals. You do not believe its an infringement upon the 2nd amendment to prevent criminals from purchasing guns. Good. So if there are loopholes by which a criminal can easily purchase or obtain a gun, they should be closed, correct? This would not infringe upon the innocent peoples right to bear arms, but would prevent criminals from obtaining guns so easily, wouldn't you agree?

No.  I would not agree.  The laws should be that criminals may not possess weapons.  If you are a criminal and you are found to be in possession of a weapon then a severe punishment should be the deterent...not infringing on the rest of societies rights for the sins of a few.

Quote

You don't want the government knowing you have a gun. Fine. How is that an infringement upon your right to own a gun though? Them knowing you have a gun doesn't prevent you from having one.

I already answered that.  The government knowing who has guns nullifies the ability to form a militia.  It is not the governments business to know that I am doing something that I have a right to do.  The question is Why should they have the right to know?

Quote

you say the law can not be enforced and is moot. Fine. But how does the unenforced law make it an infringement upon the 2nd amendment? Rather than arguing about the effectiveness of the laws at this point, I first want to understand why people say they're an infringement upon the 2nd amendment.

You asked: And what would you say about mandating that guns are kept in a safe or firearms cabinet when not under your direct control. Would that also be an infringement? Why?
Let me answer it a different way then.  The government has no business telling me where I can keep something that is my right to have to begin with.  Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment...does the government have the right then to tell me that I must record everything I say?  It isn't limiting my speech in anyway...it is just mandating that I 'put' my speech on a recording.
The best answer to your question is because the government doesn't have the right to tell me how to possess something that I have the Constitutionally Guaranteed Right to possess.

Quote

I think that the most effective solution is to do both.

I think the best solution is to do the latter and leave the Constitution alone.  If they want to modify the Amendment...there is a process by which they can do that.

[joc]

Yamato, on 16 January 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Why aren't they allowed to have nukes and WMDs and the lot, indeed!   That's a great question.   That's how this country is supposed to be.  Militias that are raised into armies, not perpetual standing armies and trillions of the peoples' dollars being spent on this global nation building police state.   The founders were prescient enough to see this tendency ahead of time and put safeguards into the law to prevent it.  And we let our bureaucrats run wild with their dream-speak of "superpower" and "exceptionalism".   How could anyone be so gullible to trust them?

The World Wars changed all of that did they not?  You cannot put that genie back into the bottle.