RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership

Page: << < prev 14 15 16 [17] 18 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 10:56:46 AM

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

Cloud have a question based on your citation of a "sacred right" what rights do you feel are not sacred? and if they are not sacred then would they be privledges not rights?

meatcleaver
I would contend that the gun culture aspect of the US is hinged on the simple fact that they were the tool used to create and build the US from colony to country. Most of Europe was long since tamed and nationalized by the time firearms reached their maturity.
The iconic images of American History all tend to be armed with guns.
The Minuteman (the armed citizen)
The Mountain Man
The Cowboy

The values of these icons tend to be the values of the people they represent. Rugged Individuals are the celebrated figures and almost invariably they were in US history armed with guns.

(in reply to cloudboy)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 1:00:29 PM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

meatcleaver
I would contend that the gun culture aspect of the US is hinged on the simple fact that they were the tool used to create and build the US from colony to country. Most of Europe was long since tamed and nationalized by the time firearms reached their maturity.
The iconic images of American History all tend to be armed with guns.
The Minuteman (the armed citizen)
The Mountain Man
The Cowboy

The values of these icons tend to be the values of the people they represent. Rugged Individuals are the celebrated figures and almost invariably they were in US history armed with guns.

Your thesis doesn't hold true. The American icon of the rugged individual isn't uniquely American since all colonial countries were forged by such men, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc. and other lands of the European Empires, all by tamed and nationalized Europeans. The two great revolutions were by tame nationalized Europeans. Britain introduced the industrial revolution and lasissez faire capitalism to the world with tame and nationalized individuals. Take any European explorers and empire makers, they were all rugged individuals armed to the teeth. However, the men remain famous or infamous as the case may be but their weapons haven't become icons. There really isn't anything unque about the rugged American individual, just as there is nothing unque about tame nationalized Europeans, America has more than its fair share of that type too. In fact more calls for protectionism comes out of Washington than Brussels (though maybe not Paris).

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 3/20/2008 1:02:05 PM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Archer)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 1:31:10 PM

Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

But where does a gun proponent draw the line? Suppose you insisted you had the right to carry it into you college classrooms, or into courtrooms and airplanes, etc.

Where exactly does one circumscribe the Second Amendment?

I'd like to take a shot at answering these questions because they're very valid and pertinent to the discussion.

I guess the easiest thing would be to say that I draw the line at the laws within a given state as long as those laws don't violate the constitution itself. As an example, if a state made a law against burning the American flag, that would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Having a law which says you can't make a fire in a public square does not violate the constitution. So, if you burned a flag in a public square, the law which is violated is burning something in a public square, not burning the flag. It doesn't matter 'what' you burned, it's the fact that you burned something in violation of the law.

The same, I think, holds true for owning a gun. For a state to ban owning a gun is a violation of the 2nd amendment. For a state to ban for example, firing a gun within city limits is not a violation of the constitution and such a law should be adhered to and any violation of that law should dealt with in an appropriate manner as determined by the state which enacted the law. Again, that manner (the consequence of violating that law) cannot violate the constitution.

Gun laws which don't violate the constitution are, generally, going to be okay and most gun proponents are going to abide by those laws. I think the framers were very wise in some of the cross-check statutes which they put into place and for those sorts of things to be overturned or amended is going to take wiser men still than the framers. I don't think it's going to be a very easy task to find groups of such men. Now, that may make it seem like I think America is full of dummies, but that's not the case. What we are full of is a people who are 'used' to having our liberty. We didn't have to scratch and claw for what we've got, the framers did that for us and I think it gave them a unique perspective that you would be hard pressed to find in this country today. Our job, as citizens of this country, is to make sure their hard work is not lightly displaced but even so, the framers were very careful to ensure there was a process set for future generations should the need arise. Is the fact that felons can't 'keep and bear arms' a violation of the constitution? No, it's not because there is within the constitution itself the answer to that question which is, a felon is no longer protected by the constitution.

The other issues which you mentioned aren't really covered by the constitution because the constitution applies to state laws and the powers of the federal government. A class on gun safety may very well allow you to take your gun with you. Many states allow judges to carry concealed weapons in a courtroom and air marshalls often have weapons on airplanes.

I think the difference boils down to one of choice. You have the choice whether or not to meet the criteria of a given public access point. If you don't want to meet the criteria (do not bring a weapon here) then don't go or suffer the due process of the law. Your home, though, and a law which bans one from the ability to keep and bear arms in their own place of residence does violate Article II because you have no choice but to go home (which is the basic nutshell version of the Heller case).

Just one more thing when you really don't have a choice which is being summoned for jury duty. By law, you have to attend to jury duty. Since you have no choice, does that mean you are entitled to carry your gun into the courtroom or does that mean any law in place which prevents you from carrying a gun into a courtroom is in violation of the 2nd amendment?

I'll leave that one to the Supreme court to figure out.

Celeste

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."

(in reply to cloudboy)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 2:12:06 PM

Posts: 1090
Joined: 6/25/2005
Status: offline

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_racist.jpg

(in reply to BitaTruble)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 2:17:50 PM

Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

You know it is really cute that when you discuss regulations and laws designed to limit unfettered ownership of guns ,there knee jerk reaction to make it about outlawing completely the right to own guns.That must be taught in some NRA handbook in another context it is called bait and switch..

God only knows where us nutcases get the idea that there are people out there who want to take our guns away...I mean it isn't like you said any of the following is it?

quote:

what bullshit.there are a hundred different regulations and laws that unfortunately while infringing ownership obviously don't go far enough

quote:

So let me know when the NRA supports federal legislation designed to curb gun ownership...

quote:

So gun owners will give up their guns only after criminals are disarmed.

(in reply to slvemike4u)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 2:24:09 PM

Posts: 1090
Joined: 6/25/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

What I care about is that my son doesn't get shot. Makes sense?

Guns are illegal in England. If you can suffer their food...

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 2:27:04 PM

Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

When listening to the extreme right on this issue, they give the impression that they would prefer to live in a lawless society with abundant gun ownership than to live in a lawful society with restricted gun ownership.

Cloudboy, if this is what you are hearing, you need a hearing aid. I am not on the right and am quite left wing but I challenge you to find a quote from a major gun group saying they want a lawless society. Most scream at the top of their lungs trying to get gun laws enforced against criminals (which they aren't), hate criminals in general, and in anything prefer a police state.

And if it is simply that they demand the rights our forefathers became traitors and criminals to fight and win for us, then well who the fuck cares you won't ever get it anyway.

(in reply to SimplyMichael)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 2:27:59 PM

Posts: 1090
Joined: 6/25/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Also, the idea that Gun ownership is a pathway to civil utopia just isn't supported by history; and in modern times there is abundant evidence that an overly armed population devolves into chaos: somalia & Afghanistan.

As for the US, the right to bear arms did not protect Asian rights during WWII. It did not help emancipate African Americans. It did not give women the right to vote. Frankly, I'm not sure what its given us, if anything at all. At best, I think it gives Americans a sense of individualism and personal freedom --- but it gives this with steep external costs to general society.

The question is, are those costs avoidable or not?

Legislatures do have the right to engage in a cost-benefit analysis here.

Yes you are right about African-Americans after the civil war almost all states made it illegal for blacks to own guns...

(in reply to cloudboy)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 2:29:09 PM

Posts: 1090
Joined: 6/25/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

The common refrain from gun proponents that an armed German population would have prevented the rise of Hitler --- that kind of thinking is just far fetched at best. How am I supposed to give such a position credence?

Many of Hitler's supporters were armed civilians and probably had personal politics similar to many leading members of the NRA from what I have heard the NRA members espousing.

Hitler disarmed the Entire population by 1938...

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 2:36:51 PM

Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline

Reasonable gun laws?

How about giving me the same chance to get a concealed carry permit as a rich person? Seems that in America this would be the case but it isn't. Fineswine has one but your average citizen can't get one. DC didn't actually BAN handguns, they banned average citizens from owning them. Every big campaign donor is a reserve cop or gets a permit to carry and in short have no restrictions on ownership. A level playing field with the rich would be nice.

Or get this, silencer, machineguns, and grenade launchers are legal in a number of state. They are highly controlled and expensive but the requirements for ownership are generally uniform (see above hypocrisy) and yet despite what we are told by the media...there is virtually no crime committed with legal ones, the few times there has been, it was a cop shooting up his wife. If you want to ban cops owning guns, fine with me.

Lastly, banning handguns is pointless. Almost every shotgun and hunting rifle can be cut into a handgun with a hacksaw. So what, you ban them next?

Assault weapons are LESS powerful and LESS lethal than hunting guns but again, why let facts like that get in the way of a good tirade?

Besides, you could strip America of guns but you wouldn't end the crime problem. Crime isn't caused by guns, it is caused by poverty, fix that and you fix crime.

I have always called the big stupid guns like desert eagles and such "penis extenders" but I wonder if somehow the anti-gun people aren't somehow the mirror image of that. They have some insecurity about someone having a bigger dick or needing to emasculate others so they don't feel so impotent?

(in reply to Moloch)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 2:38:43 PM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moloch

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

The common refrain from gun proponents that an armed German population would have prevented the rise of Hitler --- that kind of thinking is just far fetched at best. How am I supposed to give such a position credence?

Many of Hitler's supporters were armed civilians and probably had personal politics similar to many leading members of the NRA from what I have heard the NRA members espousing.

Hitler disarmed the Entire population by 1938...

He spent the previous 12 years arming them. But this refers back to a point I made earlier in the thread, propaganda is what people should be arming themselves against.

I know there has been a lot of propaganda by the NRA and American Riflemen claiming that the fascists used gun registrations to arrest people but the Nazis used all sorts of lists to arrest people. Hitler cut the German unemployment rate through arms production, there were more weapons and small arms available under the fascists than ever. Despite that, there was no critical mass against the Nazis for many social reasons and because Nazd propaganda was so effective. Which really proves my point, guns don't prevent tyranny, critical thought is a far better weapon.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 3/20/2008 2:39:37 PM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Moloch)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 2:39:12 PM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moloch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

What I care about is that my son doesn't get shot. Makes sense?

Guns are illegal in England. If you can suffer their food...

Thanks for reminding me where I come from... and no, guns are not illegal in Britain. That's a common fallacy: they're just not available at most supermarkets :-) . To issue a gun holding certificate, the police has to be convinced the potential holder has a good reason to have a gun in the first place: sports, hunting, or work.

All in all, a sane policy.

_____________________________

(in reply to Moloch)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 2:50:29 PM

Posts: 4279
Joined: 2/2/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Thanks for reminding me where I come from... and no, guns are not illegal in Britain. That's a common fallacy: they're just not available at most supermarkets :-) . To issue a gun holding certificate, the police has to be convinced the potential holder has a good reason to have a gun in the first place: sports, hunting, or work.

All in all, a sane policy.

Yup this is true, I know people who own guns but they have them so they can go hunting etc not because 'a piece of outdated legislation means its your right'. People dont tend to carry them on their person and most gun permits are for large hunting guns (cept the police of course)

The reason that you have so much gun crime in america is because you are allowed guns, end of. If you are in house and your wife is really getting on your tits and you have a gun in the bedside drawer you are far more likely to shoot her than if you didnt (the chances of you toddling out to buy an illegal gun because your wife is nagging yeah you would probably calm down by then) I am sure I will get flamed because you live in these very tough areas or whatever bullshit you want to go on about, the only reason you need a gun to protect yourself is because every fucker has a gun.

See hun im not being a wuss now :P

< Message edited by colouredin -- 3/20/2008 2:51:02 PM >

_____________________________

Resident Lime(y) Tart
There would be no gossip without secrets
I don't want to be anything other than what I've been trying to be lately

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELvfMJoKDAk

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 2:53:48 PM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

I'm proud of you, babes. Now, give us a snog

.

_____________________________

(in reply to colouredin)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 2:56:22 PM

Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611
The far-left has tried for decades to twist the meaning of that amendment. It is the one part of the constitution they hate with a passion.

I think it's possible I am the most "left" person on these boards.

So, in a word: wrong!

I thought it was me...And I think gun ownership is groovy.

_____________________________

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 3:21:33 PM

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

The problem with your argument here is how too much individual liberty leads to anarchy.

The best pathway to liberty that we know is civil contract; and the lynchpin of all civil contracts is some degree of individual subordination to societal laws.

In many cases that subordination leads to a net gain in liberty.

Also, the idea that Gun ownership is a pathway to civil utopia just isn't supported by history; and in modern times there is abundant evidence that an overly armed population devolves into chaos: somalia & Afghanistan.

As for the US, the right to bear arms did not protect Asian rights during WWII. It did not help emancipate African Americans. It did not give women the right to vote. Frankly, I'm not sure what its given us, if anything at all. At best, I think it gives Americans a sense of individualism and personal freedom --- but it gives this with steep external costs to general society.

The question is, are those costs avoidable or not?

Legislatures do have the right to engage in a cost-benefit analysis here.

I've never subscribed to the "Social Contract Hypothesis".

*I* didn't sign no "Contract", nor did I receive anything of value NOR did I give anything of value.

It's not a Contract in any sense of the word.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to cloudboy)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 4:32:49 PM

Posts: 5732
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSCD

You are kidding yourself if you think gun control is not necessary. If guns don't settle things for people, what are they for?

More like you are kidding yourself if you think gun control is necessary. Guns don't settle anything in any fashion people don't want them settled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSCD
They are an accident waiting to happen for people who wish to have peace in their lives.

Not true. Accidents are never "waiting to happen." Colorful metaphors do not factual argument make.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSCD
Now, my final thought on this post is what happened to me when I was married to him. We would drive down the major highway, and he would pull a gun on people. He did not shoot it, but he certainly would have. He shoved me around enough for me to know he would do it.
Now, you are going to say, I should have left, turned him in, etc, etc, but the fact of the matter was I was in shock for about 9 months before I fully realized what he had done.

As long as you left the fool after the shock wore off, I've no comment to make.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSCD
Sure we have the right to bear arms; however, we do not have the right to be irresponsible with them.

I quite agree. The flaw in gun control is that it proceeds from the premise that people are inherently "irresponsible". That thinking is incompatible with the very concept of civil liberty.

When you infringe on rights, you reduce the responsibility you expect of people. It is more fair, and more just, to push the other way, expand civil liberty, and expect more responsibility of people.

_____________________________

(in reply to MissSCD)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 4:38:02 PM

Posts: 5732
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Hmmm... all I ask is that you're careful with your dangerous toys, and you call that venting spleen? Perhaps you're even more emotionally invested in all this than I am .

Remember, nobody's taking your toys away :-) .

When you decorate your discourse with terms like "fucking guns"....yeah, I call that venting spleen. And it's still pointed in the wrong direction.

Passive aggressive posturing of "li'l ol' me" counts as venting spleen, btw. Any more cleverness you care to trot out?

_____________________________

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 5:08:40 PM

Posts: 1090
Joined: 6/25/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Thanks for reminding me where I come from... and no, guns are not illegal in Britain. That's a common fallacy: they're just not available at most supermarkets :-) . To issue a gun holding certificate, the police has to be convinced the potential holder has a good reason to have a gun in the first place: sports, hunting, or work.

All in all, a sane policy.

Well you see you seem to forget that you are not in england the 2nd amendment is NOT for duck hunting, its for keeping tyrants in check.

See thats the thing you are thinking like a subject not a citizen
I dont NEED a reason to own a gun its my RIGHT.

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/20/2008 5:14:34 PM

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moloch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Thanks for reminding me where I come from... and no, guns are not illegal in Britain. That's a common fallacy: they're just not available at most supermarkets :-) . To issue a gun holding certificate, the police has to be convinced the potential holder has a good reason to have a gun in the first place: sports, hunting, or work.

All in all, a sane policy.

Well you see you seem to forget that you are not in england the 2nd amendment is NOT for duck hunting, its for keeping tyrants in check.

See thats the thing you are thinking like a subject not a citizen
I dont NEED a reason to own a gun its my RIGHT.

Obviously the retards in DC think of us as their subjects. Just look at the way we're treated.

Woefully, the 2nd Amendment doesn't seem to be all that effective. Bush Supporters continue to hold office and have jobs as Federal Employees -- Offering us Lies, Spies and Torture. Plundering the Nation's Treasury, and pointlessly and needlessly *wasting* the lives of the Nation's Soldiers.

Tonight, I think I'll blame: "The 17th Amendment"

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Moloch)

Page: << < prev 14 15 16 [17] 18 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership

Page: << < prev 14 15 16 [17] 18 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.117