Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Warning: Object to Assault Weapons and Be Destroyed!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • nacktman
    replied
    Better check the realities of the 18th century again and the history of citizenship and voting all the way back to ancient Greece.
    The misinformed idea that ALL citizens (read: residing persons) can vote and One Man-One Vote are modern concepts with the latter being a political campagin slogan.
    Resrictions and exclusions have always been attached to citizenship and to voting and which "rights" were granted to them.
    As it stands the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT grant anyone one NOT meeting the criteria of the 18th century standards for citizenship and membership in the militia the right to bear arms, and it will NEVER be a given that such a right is granted unless the Amendement is amended to reflect the current period of time, so any arguement otherwise is moot until such time as the Amendment is thus amended.

    Leave a comment:


  • usmc1
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by Mr. Z:
    Everyone here has missed the critical word in the second amendment and it is not the word militia. It is the word "people." If the right of the people to keep and bear arms is in fact a collective right and not an individual right, then in the 11 instances in which the word people is used in the constitution those rights are also collective rights and not individual rights. Using that logic, you do not have the individual right of freedom of speech, etc. Look at the scholarly work in this area and the recent papers published by the Justice Department. The second amendment is an individual right with no qualifications.

    Also, read the minutes and notes of the constitutional convention and meetings that followed. It is very clear the founding fathers intended the second amendment and all 10 amendments as individual rights.


    It is not clear what the founders meant, were it clear the judges, as far back to the Andrew Jackson presidency, would have had a much easier time interpreting intent. When speaking of the word militia in the second amendment people often omit that word's modifiers "well-regulated" militia which suggests an intent of a whole lot less than every Tom, Jack and Rufus running about with a blunderbuss.

    That intent of a well-regulated militia has a lot of history and pracitical experience to support it, even back into English common law which really was the basis of most of the legal and political thinking of most of the so-called "founders". But, a "well-regulated militia" is implicitly exclusive of the "all" and more than merely suggestive of controls, restraints, rules and regulations.

    The debate and now back on topic is not whether government has the right to control firearms (it does -that has been established) but what sort of controls and retrictions are acceptable to the people within a certain period of history.

    A while back I would have argued for a ban on assault weapons. But, as I've said earlier, after watching the complete breakdown of civil authority and disintegration of the lines of protection following Katrina and Rita and knowing full-well that gangs, drug dealers and other nihilistic miscreants have automatic weapons and have no compunction against using them to gain control in such scenarios, I intend to maintain an equal level of fire-power to defend myself and those who look to me for defense.

    But, I would really like to see some honesty in this arguement. Assault weapons have nothing at all to do with teaching kids gun safety, target practice, hunting, or an inherent right to keep and bear arms, or any of the other smoke screens that crop up. Assualt weapons serve but one purpose; to put a lot of rounds into a target in a very rapid amount of time.

    Not everyone needs or can use one. But, some of us, oh yes, some us, until such time as we solve some some of society's problems and can ALWAYS count of civil authority to provide protection, will need to have such weapons available to protect ourselves against those who also have such weapons.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Z
    replied
    Everyone here has missed the critical word in the second amendment and it is not the word militia. It is the word "people." If the right of the people to keep and bear arms is in fact a collective right and not an individual right, then in the 11 instances in which the word people is used in the constitution those rights are also collective rights and not individual rights. Using that logic, you do not have the individual right of freedom of speech, etc. Look at the scholarly work in this area and the recent papers published by the Justice Department. The second amendment is an individual right with no qualifications.

    Also, read the minutes and notes of the constitutional convention and meetings that followed. It is very clear the founding fathers intended the second amendment and all 10 amendments as individual rights.

    Leave a comment:


  • NCguy49
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by nacktman:
    The District court got it all wrong in its decision and it will be overturned by the full court.

    The 2nd amendment does not give the right to bear arms to every citizen regardless of what the NRA tires to bullsh!t you into beliving.
    It only allows for those citizens that meet the criteria of "property owner" or a member of the militia as set forth by decree and custom of the 18th century.
    The amendment has NOT been altered or updated to reflect current times and therefore stands as written, to wit, the right to bear arms is only afforded to "White Men who own 5000 acres of land or more or have the equivolent in monetary wealth" as at the time the amendment was written only those meeting the above stated criteria could vote and only voters could be citizens -- it should be noted here that not all men residing within the former colonies were afford the right to vote to begin with even though they assumed it to be so -- and only those citizens belonging to the militia could bear those arms, all other members of the militia were afforded the right to bear arms during the militia 'standing' but were not afforded the right to continue to bear arms when the militia 'stood down'.


    Hogwash. If that were true at the time of adoption of the 2nd amendment, then it is true today as anyone can be a citizen regardless of property or wealth. The laws did not change, but society changed. Times have changed, but the reasons for bearing arms have not. It would be an ideal world if no aggressors were present, but unfortunately, there are more today that ever before.

    The right to keep and bear arms is no different than the right to be nude. There will always be those that feel that their personal lives are threatened by those that participate in those areas. Those threatened by nudists are those that they themselves feel sexually inadequate and feel they may resort to their hidden perverted desires - as with guns, they too feel they will resort to their own murderous desires.

    It's all a state of mind and we as civilized beings know that being nude is a state of mind as is the right to live and the right to defend those beliefs.

    Once society realizes that people are different and actually have minds of their own then the world will be a better place. Once these people start dictating their beliefs - as do the Talaban, Al Quida, etc., then there will always be the need for armed defense. And once people realize that nudity is a state of mind and not a sex party, then the world will accept it in all its glory.

    Guns are not a problem and nudist are not a problem. It's the perverted thoughts of the uninformed, misinformed and blind minded people that are the problem. All arguments againsdt nudity and guns are seeded in fear - fear of the unknown. Fear that they will be lead to give in to their innermost desires. So if you have these fears, then you need to right yourself and live - live a normal peaceful life.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • nacktman
    replied
    The District court got it all wrong in its decision and it will be overturned by the full court.

    The 2nd amendment does not give the right to bear arms to every citizen regardless of what the NRA tires to bullsh!t you into beliving.
    It only allows for those citizens that meet the criteria of "property owner" or a member of the militia as set forth by decree and custom of the 18th century.
    The amendment has NOT been altered or updated to reflect current times and therefore stands as written, to wit, the right to bear arms is only afforded to "White Men who own 5000 acres of land or more or have the equivolent in monetary wealth" as at the time the amendment was written only those meeting the above stated criteria could vote and only voters could be citizens -- it should be noted here that not all men residing within the former colonies were afford the right to vote to begin with even though they assumed it to be so -- and only those citizens belonging to the militia could bear those arms, all other members of the militia were afforded the right to bear arms during the militia 'standing' but were not afforded the right to continue to bear arms when the militia 'stood down'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nude in the North
    replied
    quote:
    On Friday March 9, 2007 the US District Court for the DC Circuit ruled for the very first time in US history that there is an individual right to bear arms stemming from the 2nd Amendment, which is distinct from the Amendment's grant for militias. It also said that that right can be 'well regulated', but not to the point where it becomes a blanket prohibition.


    Finally they got it Right!

    Again proving that just because a "court" rules a certain way it doesn't mean it's Right.

    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Naturist Mark
    replied
    quote:
    The Federal and Supreme Courts have ruled on gun laws over and over again. The 2nd Amendment does not apply - it is about the right of the States to maintain armed militias. Well regulated armed militias. In the manner of colonial and early post independence times the militia was composed of able bodied local residents, who were required to keep their arms readily available at short notice should they be called up. It is about state controlled citizen militias. That is the historical context. It doesn't matter how hard you wish otherwise, and how often the NRA has said otherwise. The courts have ruled.

    Gun control laws and regulations have not been overturned by the courts on 2nd Amendment grounds. That is our clear judicial precedent. Crying about it doesn't do a bit of good.


    Well, that was perfectly true until yesterday.

    On Friday March 9, 2007 the US District Court for the DC Circuit ruled for the very first time in US history that there is an individual right to bear arms stemming from the 2nd Amendment, which is distinct from the Amendment's grant for militias. It also said that that right can be 'well regulated', but not to the point where it becomes a blanket prohibition.

    Court Calls District Gun Laws Unconstitutional

    There WILL be appeals - probably back to the full District Court, and then whichever side loses will appeal to the Supreme Court - right in the middle of next year's Presidential election. The NRA couldn't be happier.

    -Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • K and C
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by shomymojo:
    Anyone remember the LA riots...lets go down memory lane in those streets..looted burned out building...looted burned out building...Building with people on the roof protecting it with firearms...looted burned out building...looted burned out building...building with people on the roof protecting it with firearms...not the police...but armed citizens...protecting what was theirs...GUNS...are morally neutral...its the intent of the user that matters...and THEY will NEVER get my guns...I will simply hide them if I must..so I will have them if needed to protect my family if the time ever comes...and if my government cannot...or will not...protect us...because its a jungle out there..and there are lots of predators...and I know that from many years in law enforcemant...dealing with those predators each and everyday...and my guns stay !!!

    Amen!!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Naturist Mark
    replied
    quote:
    The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting. It's about the right of the citizenry to keep and bear the means of protecting itself against governmental tyranny in all of its various forms.



    Wrong.

    Okay, partly wrong. It is about the right of the citizenry organized as well regulated state militias to protect the states from governmental tyranny in the form of a Federal standing army.

    The Federal and Supreme Courts have ruled on gun laws over and over again. The 2nd Amendment does not apply - it is about the right of the States to maintain armed militias. Well regulated armed militias. In the manner of colonial and early post independence times the militia was composed of able bodied local residents, who were required to keep their arms readily available at short notice should they be called up. It is about state controlled citizen militias. That is the historical context. It doesn't matter how hard you wish otherwise, and how often the NRA has said otherwise. The courts have ruled.

    Gun control laws and regulations have not been overturned by the courts on 2nd Amendment grounds. That is our clear judicial precedent. Crying about it doesn't do a bit of good.

    The right for individuals to own and bear arms exists in common law separately from the militia context and 2nd Amendment, it is an essential component of the right of self defense. But common law does not prohibit regulation.

    Absolutist arguments about gun bans and complete freedom to own anything are pointless and infantile. In the NRA's case deliberately dishonest - they know the law, but prefer to deceive.

    The fact is - Americans will not tolerate a gun ban. We ARE a gun culture. There will be no law denying the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms unless the neo-cons succeed in establishing a totally fascist state.

    Gun haters will have to come to terms with living in a gun culture. Gun lovers need to deal with the responsibility that comes with living in a gun culture - meaning coming to terms with the need for education and responsible regulation. Both sides need to stop listening to the cry babies and put them to bed. This is a matter for grown ups.

    -Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • NudeAl
    replied
    quote:
    There is one obvious fact that is overlooked in any discussion of gun control. The sole function of a gun is to KILL a living being, whether it's with a .22, 50 cal, single shot or fully automatic machine gun.

    Doesn't that alone make it imperative that guns be controlled in some form.

    It doesn't take an AK-47 with a thirty round magazine to go hunting. After the first round is fired at your prey, it's gone. There's no need for a second shot. Most hunting (I'm no expert) can probably be done with a single shot shotgun. I'd go so far as to say a five round pump shotgun is the ideal personal weapon. In an emergency situation when the average person is completely rattled, there is a slightly improved chance he may actually hit an intruder with the scattered dispersal of of the shot and he has four more shots if the idiot decides to stay around. And the pellets don't go a mile down range to kill or injure innocent bystanders.

    Gun ownership should be restricted to long barrel bolt or pump action weapons with five shot capacity at the most. Very few occupations require a handgun and they should be outlawed for the general public. Additionally, there's a huge safety concern about the qualifications of a lot of those who already own handguns. I spent 29 years in the military and I won't have one in my house.


    I disagree fire arms are used in the Olympics games, modern pentathlon and biathlon to name a couple. Last I heard not too many of the athletes were shooting each other. Many shooting sports such as skeet and trap shooting and many other marksmanship sporting events as well as demonstration shooting events.

    I would also say that your version of America and mine are very different. I live in an area of the country where anyone who can pass a simple background check can apply for an get a license to carry a concealed weapon. I don't know the percentage but I would suggest that it is significant. I live in the middle of one of the greatest areas in our country for hunting recreation. A majority of the homes here do have at least one firearm however we don't appear to have rampant out of control violent crime. We do have crime to be sure but in your version of America we should be having shoot outs on the street everyday due to the number of firearms in our society. Motor vehicles are far more deadly to our society than firearms and I don't see anyone calling for a ban on them.

    Finally, you would have a revolution on your hands if anyone in government office now were to propose the changes and restrictions you are talking about. I don't have anything against others who dislike firearms just be careful about asking us to give up our freedom. Someday someone may be asking you to give up one of the freedoms you actually do care about. By then though no one will be able to resist a totalitarian regime once all the firearms are controlled by the government.

    Leave a comment:


  • Baremore
    replied
    I don't know how to put Naturist Mark's last comment in here, so please see his previous post about non-hunting use of guns.

    Target shooting, plinking, etc, are skill developement activities. They teach how to use the weapon and build proficiency in their use. They in no way change the only purpose of a gun: to KILL.

    The non-hunting sports are also lame excuses to justify owning the darn things in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • harveym
    replied
    Isupport the right to bare arms (among other things).

    Leave a comment:


  • Naturist Mark
    replied
    quote:
    The sole function of a gun is to KILL a living being, whether it's with a .22, 50 cal, single shot or fully automatic machine gun.


    Many many people participate in non hunting shooting sports. Probably the vast majority of bullets fired are against non living targets.

    -Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • usmc1
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by hm0504:
    I would emphasize that the Second Amendment says "arms" not just "guns". Thus I would think that if the NRA was truly faithful to its calling, it would be constantly and stridently demanding that today's citizens have the right to bear anti-tank rockets, mortars, anti-aircraft missiles, rockets-propelled grenades, suitcase nukes, whatever. What a bunch of weenies.


    Yeah, what a bunch of wussies. If I had a couple of knee mortars, I could shut down the marauders up at the west gate.

    Leave a comment:


  • nacktman
    replied
    Don't forget about knives, hatchets, long bows, crossbows, spears, swords, halbards, maces, trunchens, clubs, bullwhips, cudgels, and other such arms!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X