Collarchat.com

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  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/18/2008 8:25:13 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

But I believe strongly in the Constitution and how it was meant when written down.


Emphasis added.

In that case, should the Second Amendment extend to arms, such as assault weapons, invented after the amendment was ratified?

< Message edited by dcnovice -- 3/18/2008 8:26:38 PM >


_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Gemini1766)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/18/2008 8:54:14 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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.

 
cd:
James and Sarah Brady,the two most ardent gun grabbers in America ("Brady Bill"), are both extreme right wing Republicans.  How does that fit in with your knee jerk cheap shot at the demopubs? 
thompson 





(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/18/2008 9:07:49 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Urza

On a serious note...



On a serious note, the number of people who favor disarming themselves is doomed to diminish as fewer of them live to reproduce.
 
K.
 

(in reply to Urza)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/18/2008 9:12:49 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

In that case, should the Second Amendment extend to arms, such as assault weapons, invented after the amendment was ratified?

Where are we going with this? Virtually every weapon in use today was "invented after the amendment was ratified".
 
K.
 

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/18/2008 9:18:34 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

In that case, should the Second Amendment extend to arms, such as assault weapons, invented after the amendment was ratified?

Where are we going with this? Virtually every weapon in use today was "invented after the amendment was ratified".
 
K.
 


Bingo.

The Second Amendment is now taken, often by so-called originalists, to embrace all kinds of weaponry the authors could not have intended or perhaps even imagined.




< Message edited by dcnovice -- 3/18/2008 9:22:18 PM >


_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/18/2008 9:20:57 PM   
ownedgirlie


Posts: 9184
Joined: 2/5/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Two categories of people I don't trust: criminals and politicians that want to take away, or significantly regulate, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those are precisely the two groups that shouldn't be the only folks with guns.


I absolutely agree with this.


(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/18/2008 9:47:55 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
As you can see, I am here. I got here soon enough to read it all this time :-)

The Constitution specifically states that it does not bestow rights. It merely defines them. People today do not see it that way though, thus the issue.

In my opinion everyone over the age of eighteen should have a gun, ammunition for it and know how to use it. There should be shooting ranges at schools. The Parents should bring in the gun that will be used to teach their kid, at the end of the course, if they pass, the gun is given to them to take home. And it is a required course, if the family cannot afford a gun for each of their kids, they are provided, they just don't get to take them home.

A government by the People, of the People and for the People would do this. A regime would not. Click click ?

I would support bans on certain types of ammo within city limits. Not only do you not need a thirty ought six in an apartment building, you don't want it. Those things with a nice load in them will penetrate the outside walls of houses, let alone walls between rooms.

So whatever gun you have, if you are in an urban area you are required to only shoot hollow points. They have less chance of completely penetrating the target and injuring someone standing behind them, let alone pierce them cleanly enough to go through a wall or a door. They also injure the target much more effectively.

I can understand such restrictions.

And as far as what are called arms, you use them with your arms. If you can't hold it up with one arm, I don't think you want it in an urban area. Like a fifty caliber. Somebody climbs into your window at night and you say "Hold on while I go get the tripod and clips". You need something in your hand. You need it now.

BTW, if something like that ever happens to you, you shoot first. You tell the cops (if they come) that you said "Stop or I'll shoot and he didn't stop". If you like for Karma's sake you can say it after you shoot, and they will not stop bleeding so you spoke the truth.

If you break into someone's house when it is dark you are asking for trouble because they are liable to be home. Sometimes you do run across someone who is tough and therefore you are probably armed. Whether you are really tough or armed does not matter.

Try that shit at my house most likely there will be a camshaft for a 1966 Chevy 350 down your throat. Try it over my buddy's house you will get a broken neck and then dragged out in the backyard, literally, you'll be found in the morning. The cover of darkness works both ways you know.

But what if it happened at my Mother's house ?

Well it almost did. My sister had a real dikhead for a boyfriend and one day he broke in. My Mother tried to shoot him but we got her a break action revolver. I think it was a five shot but we told her to keep it loaded with four, because it had a solid firing pin I think. Well she forgot it was loaded and opened it, which let some of the rounds slide down under the ejector plate. Therefore it would not close to reset the mechanism to again raise the ejector plate. If not this guy would be dead.

He was all high on acid, in love with my sister he thought, and rejected because he had abused her when they lived together. I almost killed him myself when I heard the saga of that and now you take it to my Mother ? I will not say exactly what I did, but surprisingly it was legal and effective. I am sure I lost more sleep over him being alive than I would've if he was dead. During that time I figured out what to do, and he is ruined now. All his mighty connections became worthless in a hurry. See when they busted him at my Mother's house he had a shitload of drugs and that all got swept under the rug. I knew who his connections were and I ruined them.

I had never done anything like this to anyone, and haven't since, but you don't fuck with Mom. Nuff said ?

This country was tamed by hard Men, much harder than I, and they meant for criminals to meet with their demise. I have no sympathy at all, not for a criminal. Someone who gets a shitty hand in life OK, but not a criminal. You have to draw a line somewhere.

And carrying a gun ? Just make sure you got those hollow points in it.

All the bleeding hearts are non sequitor because when it happens to them they will change their tune real fast. Wait until they get raped or something. In fact forcible rape should warrant the death penalty, as should using one of those date rape drugs. If you will do that I do not want you on the planet and I will look right into your Parent's eyes and say "You just can't go around doing that, you should've taught them better". Just like that.

Yes, just like that. Burying your kid would be the punishment for not teaching them right from wrong. Then sit back and watch the world change, for the better this time.

Maybe in some ways I am harder than those who tamed this country. As said in an old episode of Star Trek "Death is the equation". Well we are at about three hundred million and counting, so I think the results are in. Go figure. (I meant that literally, too many people, too much crime, getting worse, figure it out)

If we don't get to 100 pages by tomorrow I might be back.

T

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/18/2008 9:47:56 PM   
slaveboyforyou


Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline
quote:

Bingo.

The Second Amendment is now taken, often by so-called originalists, to embrace all kinds of weaponry the authors could not have intended or perhaps even imagined.


I've heard this argument before, and it's hogwash.  In 1787 (when the Constitution was written) a private citizen could buy any weapon that was avaliable to the world's armies and navies.  If you could afford it, you could by a ship with full armaments.  Until the 20th Century, private citizens were often better armed than soldiers. 


(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/18/2008 9:54:00 PM   
petdave


Posts: 2479
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

But I believe strongly in the Constitution and how it was meant when written down.


Emphasis added.

In that case, should the Second Amendment extend to arms, such as assault weapons, invented after the amendment was ratified?


Certainly. i also believe that the First Amendment should apply to the Internet, the Third Amendment should apply to the Air Force, the Fourth Amendment should apply to my personal automobile...

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/18/2008 9:54:34 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

Bingo.

The Second Amendment is now taken, often by so-called originalists, to embrace all kinds of weaponry the authors could not have intended or perhaps even imagined.


I've heard this argument before, and it's hogwash.  In 1787 (when the Constitution was written) a private citizen could buy any weapon that was avaliable to the world's armies and navies.  If you could afford it, you could by a ship with full armaments.  Until the 20th Century, private citizens were often better armed than soldiers. 


Two thoughts:

(a) Yes, citizens could buy whatever was available in 1789 (when the Bill of Rights was introduced into Congress). That doesn't mean, however, that the Founders envisaged or would have approved of citizens' carrying some of the weapons that are available in 2008.

(b) Are you arguing that citizens should be able to carry any weapon available today? Bazookas? AK-47s? Anti-aircraft guns? Tactical nukes?

P.S. Nice new avatar pic.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to slaveboyforyou)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/18/2008 9:58:00 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: petdave

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

But I believe strongly in the Constitution and how it was meant when written down.


Emphasis added.

In that case, should the Second Amendment extend to arms, such as assault weapons, invented after the amendment was ratified?


Certainly. i also believe that the First Amendment should apply to the Internet, the Third Amendment should apply to the Air Force, the Fourth Amendment should apply to my personal automobile...



In general, I agree with you.

It bears noting that my comment was specifically in response to a post that mentioned the Constitution "when it was written." I was pointing out that life in 1787-89 is not always the most useful yardstick for addressing today's issues.

The tricky part, I think, is that we don't take any amendment entirely literally. We allow copyright and libel laws, for instance, to circumscribe the First Amendment. Few of us, I'd wager, would truly extend the Second Amendment to all arms available in 2008. (Nuke in a backpack, anyone?) The hard question then becomes where do you draw the line and on what grounds.



< Message edited by dcnovice -- 3/18/2008 10:11:38 PM >


_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to petdave)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/18/2008 10:14:10 PM   
greyarcher315


Posts: 99
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
  There is such a thing as reasonable restriction. Just as you can not shout fire in a crowded theater just because you feel like it, so too goes owning some weapons. However, those restrictions should be held up to a very high standard. Just because some weapon or other is the latest weapon of choice for the psycho of the month does not mean it should be banned. weapons like rockets, bombs, and full auto weapons will probably remain at least restricted. But some places make citizens jump through so many hoops just to own a gun, its insane. NY state is that way. If a cop can run your license in the few minutes it takes to write up a speeding ticket, then they can do quick background checks. All the delays and checking just mean that they are looking for a reason to deny you your right. And restricting ammo is not a realistic option. Some ammo has purposes beyond self defense, like hunting. if i own a rifle for hunting and someone breaks in to my house, i am going to defend myself with the best weapon available, which would probably be the rifle. When all these qualifiers start being added on, it shows the intent to circumvent the 2nd amendment.
  well, enough rambling.
   SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND ARM BEARS! 

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/18/2008 10:14:33 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

 
The Second Amendment is now taken, often by so-called originalists, to embrace all kinds of weaponry the authors could not have intended or perhaps even imagined.

I find it difficult to accept your assumption that the men who collaborated on our Constitution were so uniformly naive as to preclude them from being able to imagine the development of better weapons than were available at the time, and I have no reason to think that the thought would trouble them. The better armed the citizenry, the stronger the country and the safer its people's freedoms.

 
I suppose you're setting up a "keep and bear" nuclear weapons gambit?
 
Edited to add: Bingo again.
 
K.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 3/18/2008 10:17:30 PM >

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/18/2008 10:24:00 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I find it difficult to accept your assumption that the men who collaborated on our Constitution were so uniformly naive as to preclude them from being able to imagine the development of better weapons than were available at the time, and I have no reason to think that the thought would trouble them.


I think an assault weapon in private hands might have given them pause, but of course we'll never know.

quote:

The better armed the citizenry, the stronger the country and the safer its people's freedoms.


How do we know that?
 
quote:

I suppose you're setting up a "keep and bear" nuclear weapons gambit?


Oh, I'm not nearly clever enough for gambits! I'm simply, genuinely puzzling over where and how one draws the line in defining "arms."

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 12:55:38 AM   
UtopianRanger


Posts: 3251
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

I've always felt that anyone who needs the 2nd Amendment "Interpreted" for them is feeble-minded and mentally incompetent.




I would term it the same way, brother.

What befuddles me is that ''shotgun'' goes out of his way to join a friends-of-the-court-brief in opposition to the DC ban - while at the same time the administration's own Solicitor General is spouting off official language/rhetoric that would suggest to me they'd like to both ''see'' / keep this should-be non-dilemma ambiguous.


Looks to me like a total ''right cover'' scenario





- R

< Message edited by UtopianRanger -- 3/19/2008 12:56:57 AM >


_____________________________

"If you are going to win any battle, you have to do one thing. You have to make the mind run the body. Never let the body tell the mind what to do... the body is never tired if the mind is not tired."

-General George S. Patton


(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 1:03:11 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
Well DC if you can go buy a suitcase nuke, go for it.  you will find you can't. 


(in reply to UtopianRanger)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 1:09:22 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
DC Copyrights and Patents are part of the main text of the Constitution, and were there before the 1st amendment was even ratifyied.  Libel and Slander laws do not prevent anyone from saying anything.  They are not a restriction on speech.  However if you are lying about someone and causing them harm, they have the right to sue you over it. 

Which of the other rights listed in the Conssitution do you want to get rid of because the situation is more complex now?

(in reply to UtopianRanger)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 1:21:35 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
If one needs guns to feel safe and free, whether from ones fellow citizens or ones government, it is a sad indictment of that society.

I can't get my head round this equation that guns equal freedom, it seems an idea that is more based on fear than any reality. Freedom is in the head, not in the barrel of a gun, that is just hocus-pocus myth.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 3:32:47 AM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
I like the Swiss way. Why the objection?

Plus I wouldn't say a weapon is a safeguard for freedom, but rather against tyranny.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 3:57:46 AM   
meatcleaver


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

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

I like the Swiss way. Why the objection?

Plus I wouldn't say a weapon is a safeguard for freedom, but rather against tyranny.


My friend who is Swiss, left Switzerland for the duration of the time he could be conscripted and would be required to keep a gun at home. His reason was that there were too many accidents with guns in the home, especially regarding children and having to mix with drunk macho men (conscripts who think they are Rambo) who shouldn't be allowed near a gun was not a sensible way to spend his time.

In times of tyranny, guns are easy enough to access but in times of tyranny, the problem is solidarity between people being oppressed, not the amount of guns available, there is usually enough of them.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 3/19/2008 4:01:00 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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 Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.754