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  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:08:03 AM   
Archer


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

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

And the off base part was simple you stated how many bad owners per responsible owner, when the facts show it is 1263 responsible owners for every bad owner at worst.



No I didn't; I simply quoted the latest available figures by the Centers for Disease Control (a telling title). I didn't bother dissecting them into categories, you did.

See your post #52 in this thread " For each responsible gun owner, how many irresponsible ones? "


quote:



Failuer to see how the bias and emotional non fact based order of the words you chose speaks volumes.



I am not emotional; but you come across as if you are.

I'm cooly stating that I can do nothing about your love of guns and your right to harm bears... sorry, bear arms, but that I'd rather I didn't have to partake in your enthusiasm for ammunitions.

Quite why my cynical position is attracting such virulent responses speaks to me of the fact that the passion isn't in my camp, but in yours  .



(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:09:19 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
You're coming across as the most reasonnable of all of us, LilMiss :-) . Thank you.

PS: Archer, your passion is commendable, I'll give you that.

< Message edited by kittinSol -- 3/19/2008 8:10:50 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to LilMissHaven)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:15:59 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

I am not emotional; but you come across as if you are.

I'm cooly stating that I can do nothing about your love of guns and your right to harm bears... sorry, bear arms, but that I'd rather I didn't have to partake in your enthusiasm for ammunitions.

Quite why my cynical position is attracting such virulent responses speaks to me of the fact that the passion isn't in my camp, but in yours .


Now you're just being disingenuous. You start with a predicate that gun ownership is wrong, and then express confusion and dismay at those who would make this "wrong" choice.

Except you have not (and can not) clearly established that gun ownership is a morally wrong choice, or even a morally suspect choice. The fact that you keep rehashing the same straw man arguments and using the same invalid logic chains speaks to considerable passion on your part as well.

You have the right to declare gun ownership a morally wrong choice for you and yours. You do not have the right to declare gun ownership a morally wrong choice for me and mine. In fact, you do not even have the right to have an opinion on gun ownership for me and mine. THAT is the essence of the Second Amendment--that it is the choice of the individual, and that choice is and should be beyond scrutiny.

_____________________________



(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:19:44 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
People could mean the collective or the the individual, as in the people v Joe Bloggs, meaning the government institution acting on behalf of the people. It also says a well regulated militia which doesn't actually conjure up the picture of everyone bring along your muskets or pitchforks if you haven't got anything else.


We are not Borg. There is NO "collective".

_____________________________



(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:20:42 AM   
meatcleaver


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

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
People could mean the collective or the the individual, as in the people v Joe Bloggs, meaning the government institution acting on behalf of the people. It also says a well regulated militia which doesn't actually conjure up the picture of everyone bring along your muskets or pitchforks if you haven't got anything else.


We are not Borg. There is NO "collective".


Hmm Tell that to the Iraqis.

The people versus Larry Flynt?

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 3/19/2008 8:21:35 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:23:30 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
Absolutely not... here is an extract of  my second post:

quote:

ORIGINAL kittinSol

if people like to own guns, fine, but let's not cover up the fact that guns are weapons of death. And that they're used as such.



You will note that nowhere do I say you shouldn't own guns, nor have I ever used to words "morals", "morality"; have I even used the word "wrong"? I don't remember. The whole "you said/I said/she said" game is tiresome though.

Morality is a personal thing, since you want to talk about that. You are right that it's not a matter for anybody to judge whether another is morally wrong. We hold up to our own standards.

So in the end, I completely agree with you. See? It wasn't so difficult.

_____________________________



(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:31:42 AM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
People used as a collective term? where else in the Bill of Rights is people used to refer to a collective right?
1st Nope individual
4th Nope individual
9th Nope idividual
10th Nope individual

Seems the only place meathcleaver thinks people is not an individual is in the second ammendment.

If we assume the US Bill of Rights was patterned after the English Bill of Rights circa 1689
we find it included

"freedom [for Protestants] to bear arms for self-defence,"  which would seem pretty individual.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:31:46 AM   
SimplyMichael


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

Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."


In 1791 Congress adopted the bill of rights, considering the language of the states, any reasonable reading of The Federalist Papers, and every other contemporary source makes it quite obvious that the 2nd refers to an individuals right to own weapons superior to that of the military (which was the case at the time) and arguments limiting that right to revolutionary era weapons are spacious unless they also limit free speech to amplified voice and not to anything involving electricity...

You can hate firearms, despise the 2nd, you can even call for a new constitutional amendment revoking it, but don't pretend the right isn't exactly what the founders meant it to be, the right of the individual to arm themselves for defense of themselves and their liberty.

1776 North Carolina:  That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1776 Pennsylvania:  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont:  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

1780 Massachusetts:  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.  And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
1790 Pennsylvania:  The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
1791 Bill of Rights adopted
1792 Kentucky:  That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1796 Tennessee:  That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.
1799 Kentucky:  That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:33:28 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
I am going to assume all posters using the 2nd amendment as the rationale for gun ownership are members of a well regulated militia

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:33:39 AM   
Gemini1766


Posts: 991
Joined: 3/7/2008
Status: offline
The Federalist Papers have nothing to do with anything other than his own view. Those views were not shared with most of his peers.

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:37:29 AM   
Gemini1766


Posts: 991
Joined: 3/7/2008
Status: offline
Part of the intent was to ensure that the People have the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government. Can't do that if the government can run roughshod over you because they have weapons and we do not.

The government best serves it's constituants when it fears them.

(in reply to Gemini1766)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:38:27 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

You do not have the right to declare gun ownership a morally wrong choice for me and mine. In fact, you do not even have the right to have an opinion on gun ownership for me and mine. THAT is the essence of the Second Amendment--that it is the choice of the individual, and that choice is and should be beyond scrutiny.



Actually, I must pick a bone on that one: what do you mean, I don't have the right to an opinion ?!

It's my right to have an opinion. And to voice it, too. Even if it's a judgement on your moral choice - although you'll note it's not an option I chose to exert - we can all play silly judging games if we so choose.

You quote the Second, I quote the First... like that, ad infinitum.



_____________________________



(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:38:39 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
Get  your facts straight...from Wikipedia, not exactly a pro-gun source!

quote:

  
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles advocating the ratification of the United States Constitution. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others, called The Federalist, was published in 1788 by J. and A. McLean.[1]
The Federalist Papers serve as a primary source for interpretation of the Constitution, as they outline the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government.[2] The authors of the Federalist Papers wanted to both influence the vote in favor of ratification and shape future interpretations of the Constitution. According to historian Richard B. Morris, they are an "incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer."[3]
The articles were written by Alexander Hamilton (nos. 1, 6–9, 11–13, 15–17, 21–36, 59–61, and 65–85), James Madison (nos. 10, 14, 18–20, 37–58, and 62–63), and John Jay (2–5, and 64).[1] They appeared under the pseudonym "Publius," in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola.[4] Madison is generally credited as the father of the Constitution and became the fourth President of the United States.[5] Hamilton was an active delegate at the Constitutional Convention, and became the first Secretary of the Treasury. John Jay became the first Chief Justice of the United States.

(in reply to Gemini1766)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:42:35 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
If we as a citizenry are so worried about our government why do so many of us sit on our ass's on election day.It would seem a citizenry too lazy to vote is unlikely to go to the trouble of actually fomenting a populist uprising

(in reply to Gemini1766)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:43:17 AM   
SimplyMichael


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

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I am going to assume all posters using the 2nd amendment as the rationale for gun ownership are members of a well regulated militia


Two things, you do understand that "regulated" in that sense means having the ability to shoot someone at long distance and how to march alongside others who do as well?  It doesn't mean "laws governing" as you probably think it does.

Secondly, since the national guard, is well, national, it is no longer controlled by the states and is clearly not the militia.  Do you REALLY want people forming up militias and training?  Unintended consequences can really bit you in the ass sometimes so be careful of what  you wish for.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:47:36 AM   
Gemini1766


Posts: 991
Joined: 3/7/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Get  your facts straight...from Wikipedia, not exactly a pro-gun source!

quote:

  
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles advocating the ratification of the United States Constitution. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others, called The Federalist, was published in 1788 by J. and A. McLean.[1]
The Federalist Papers serve as a primary source for interpretation of the Constitution, as they outline the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government.[2] The authors of the Federalist Papers wanted to both influence the vote in favor of ratification and shape future interpretations of the Constitution. According to historian Richard B. Morris, they are an "incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer."[3]
The articles were written by Alexander Hamilton (nos. 1, 6–9, 11–13, 15–17, 21–36, 59–61, and 65–85), James Madison (nos. 10, 14, 18–20, 37–58, and 62–63), and John Jay (2–5, and 64).[1] They appeared under the pseudonym "Publius," in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola.[4] Madison is generally credited as the father of the Constitution and became the fourth President of the United States.[5] Hamilton was an active delegate at the Constitutional Convention, and became the first Secretary of the Treasury. John Jay became the first Chief Justice of the United States.

Nor is it a source that you can claim is the most credible. Find me an academic site, something typically ending in <dot>EDU instead. Anyone can put anything up on the wikipedia, and I know of people who purposely slant it to fit their desires.

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:48:53 AM   
Gemini1766


Posts: 991
Joined: 3/7/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

If we as a citizenry are so worried about our government why do so many of us sit on our ass's on election day.It would seem a citizenry too lazy to vote is unlikely to go to the trouble of actually fomenting a populist uprising
And that is a real and present danger. A nation comprised primarily of sheep.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:49:30 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
Mind you, sheep with guns... could be an attractive proposition :-) .

_____________________________



(in reply to Gemini1766)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:54:56 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
If Americans were truely individual and not BORG as Celticlord says, the US wouldn't have a military, a justice system, an education system (the only western one I know where kids have to swear allegence to the state) a police force, a social welfare system, Americans wouldn't have a state and couldn't possibly be patriot (something which they are in copius amounts), they wouldn't worry about borders or illegal immigrants.

The USA is a national state, that is a collective! i.e. The People.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 3/19/2008 8:56:10 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 9:00:25 AM   
meatcleaver


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

ORIGINAL: Archer

People used as a collective term? where else in the Bill of Rights is people used to refer to a collective right?
1st Nope individual
4th Nope individual
9th Nope idividual
10th Nope individual

Seems the only place meathcleaver thinks people is not an individual is in the second ammendment.

If we assume the US Bill of Rights was patterned after the English Bill of Rights circa 1689
we find it included

"freedom [for Protestants] to bear arms for self-defence,"  which would seem pretty individual.


I think you are refering to the Act of Settlement which had nothing at all to do with rights, its frame of reference was the Glorious Revolution and the disposition of the Catholic James and the invitation of William of Orange to take the English throne.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 3/19/2008 9:01:27 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.297