|
Quote:
Oh, the reason I threw the moderator card......After the Boston Marathon thread got a little personal, you posted "keep it civil kids, DON'T MAKE ME COME IN HERE" There wasn't too much civil about your personal attack on SuperSport. |
Quote:
the point was more that as a gun supporter, I dont think that EVERYBODY legally capable of owning firearms..... should. I dont have anymore to add to this disscussion. |
Quote:
You also state that gun owners need to be held accountable for crimes committed with their guns. You appear to be saying that the owner of stolen gun that was used in a crime should be held accountable. How would that be fair? Neither the gun or it's owner committed the crime. The person who holds the gun did and they should be held accountable. Should you be held responsible if your car is stolen and used in a drive by, or used to drive through a group of children who are waiting for the school bus? Of course not. This line of thinking is crazy. Place the blame at the feet of those who earn it. The way you say it, it looks like you are out to get paid by the one person that can afford it. I agree 100% with you that to many weapons (of all types) end up in the hands of those that shouldn't have them. That is what the real debate should be, but sadly it's not. My wife is a 911 dispatcher and I hear about everything that happens in Las Vegas. EVERYTHING...weather I want to or not. haha I also have some fantastic friends who are officers. Listening to them complain about how our system works against them in so many ways makes one realize why we have so many criminals and why that is only getting worse. Children being killed, by any means, is horrible. I am not some heartless monster, but thank you for trying to paint me as such. Now if your point was to say that IF the gun of an owner who fails to take preventative measures from a child having access to a his/her firearm is used by a child to shoot another child (in home shooting kind of thing) should be held accountable, I totally agree with you. Now if a gun is stolen and then used by two criminals to kill a child (this recently happened when to robbers killed a baby, because the mother did have any money) then no, the owner should not be held accountable. Now before you take that and run, my personal belief is that there is a right and a wrong way to store a firearm. I'm not sure where or why you seem to think I am against California. There are some strange laws there for sure. Travel much? The people of the United States is very different from one region to the next. You apparently missed my point. Oh and I have had loved ones killed by guns. Have you? You're last line Quote:
|
Quote:
I applaud you for realizing that firearm ownership isn't for you. It's not for everyone. You are 100% spot on. There is no one size fits all there. America, God Love her is complicated. Not infringing on the good citizens rights, while solving issues is a delicate balance. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yes I have read the Constitution. Thank you. Being curious as to why and how our founding fathers came about setting things up the way they did, I actually enjoy reading on the subject. Not an easy task they had and it took a lot of debate and give in order to finalize it. My view on the 2nd is simple. It was setup as a means of balance. A way for the people to be balanced against their government. What's my simple answer? It's not an answer to just the great gun debate A: Hold those who intentionally do harm accountable. I don't mean lock them up for years and years, while providing them with everything under the sun (our criminals seem to have it pretty good). I mean three strikes and your out...as in dead. Harsh I know, but I'm not talking about speeding tickets here. Strict punishment that is enforced works. B: People in general need to be more involved in their community...on every level. People need to be involved in their neighborhood as well as their local and state and programs. Basically a let's help each other attitude. There are some great programs out there that promote this, take the Big Bother, Big Sister program for example or the Boy/Girl Scouts. Even better would be people just doing it of their own accord. I know...kind of Bill and Ted-ish. Our continuation isn't the problem. We are. History holds the answers if we care to pay attention to it. We need to be asking "why have things changed and how did we get to this point". That would mean that people would have to accept that their good intent was in fact the wrong way to resolve a problem. It would also mean that we as a society and individuals need to make a moral and just change. I'm not the greatest with words, but that's my answer. |
A few points:
1. We have a mental health and parenting problem disguised as a gun problem in this country. 2. NO ONE is anti-gun. If they want "less guns on the street" what they really want is people wearing black and blue uniform to use their guns to take away someone elses guns. So they are still pro-gun. 3. Chicago Quote:
|
Quote:
The reason I ask if you read the Constitution is because in post 55 in your response to me, you stated that if SuperSport supports the Constitution then he should be angry that it's being unfairly attacked attacked by people who don't understand it. After seeing your response on the second amendment it appears that it is you that doesn't understand. The second amendment states "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" When the second amendment was drafted, The United States did not have standing Army. As a result, our new nation depended on on-call militias. Because the people are members of a reserve militia, they keep and own there on military equipment, hence the wording in the second amendment. Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a single ruler. By definition, the United States cannot be tyrannical because it is a represented democracy where you have the right to overthrow any person or party every two, four or six years depending on the office. Your recourse is political action and being enfranchised to vote, organize and petition. On June 26th, 2008, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in regards to D.C vs. Heller. The Court affirmed an individual right to possess a firearm without respect to whether the bearer is a militia member, and that these arms can only be possessed for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Heller also confirmed that your 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute or unlimited. Concealed weapons can be banned by states, you can limit their possession by felons and the mentally ill, and you can ban carrying a weapon in certain areas and regulate the sale of weapons. Particularly dangerous and unusual weapons can also be regulated or banned. Many people (it appears yourself included) wrongly believe in the insurrection theory of the second amendment. Under this view, the second amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms against self defense and for rebellion against a tyrannical government. When the government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to "insurrect" or take up arms against it. I'm sure as one who understands the Constitution so well you can agree that the Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination of the Constitutions meaning. You might not like that but that is the way it is. In 1951, Dennis vs. The United States, The Supreme Court issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. In their rejection they wrote the following. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government. |
Quote:
Ignorant politicians with little to no firearm experience and knowledge who are proposing laws that target law abiding gun owners and actually believe they will solve the problems are the problem. They won't go after the criminals because it would require too much effort, be too dangerous, and won't generate any fee (tax) revenue. Believing politicians will come up a with a solution to the gun problem in the US is unrealistic........especially after the Benghazi, IRS profiling, and AP wire-tapping incidents. PS - Study history........Peace is a fantasy. |
Quote:
The gun argument is only one of many infringements that the government seems to be taking these days. That is a simple one, it states: Shall not be infringed . That needs no further explanation |
Quote:
The constitution is always under attack and it seems that everyone is always trying to redefine or change it. I agree that it is often misunderstood and/or interpreted. To bad our schools don't do a better job of teaching this subject (and many others). Anyways......to understand what the founding fathers real intent was, one has to try and get inside their head. Thankfully they left behind some writing to help explain their thoughts. I'll admit, it's been a long time and I've never taken a constitutional law course, but I think the Federalist Papers (? on title) give us some pretty good insight. While I personally don't agree with the belief that the 2nd amendment isn't to guard against a tyrannical government, I do agree that it isn't limitless. What if a tyrannical government suddenly said, no more elections and would we really need a legal ruling on that one? You mention D.C. Vs Heller: Concealed weapons can be banned by states, you can limit their possession by felons and the mentally ill, and you can ban carrying a weapon in certain areas and regulate the sale of weapons. Particularly dangerous and unusual weapons can also be regulated or banned. I agree. However we are not seeing that. People from one state have no right to tell those of another what or how their laws should be written. Yet that's what we are facing. A federal registry (of any type) takes away the rights of "a free state". How is that fair or just. People who make statements like Supersports (and he pretty much said everything except I'll get you and your little dog too and call me a racist) feel they need to control everyone. Laws enacted with good intent are fine, but when they fail you can't simply point the finger at your neighbor and scream it's their fault, which is what some states and a lot of people are doing these days. I really don't think the good people of California (or any other state) are to blame for the problems in the city of Chicago. At the end of the day we are all responsible for our own actions. People like to assign blame and hold someone responsible more so than actually work to resolve an issue these days. It's sad to think that our founding fathers with all their differences where able to sit down and come up with our Constitution, yet we, the more modern man, can't even come up with a simple straight forward approach on how to resolve ILLEGAL guns and the crimes committed with them. Balance is there somewhere if we care to really find it. A bigger, better and much more useful debate would be on how to handle criminal organizations, gangs and thugs, etc. Right now we have law abiding people attacking each other, threatening and making demands in order to curb criminal behavior. That really doesn't make any sense what so ever now does it? I have to say thank you for one of the best posts I have seen on this site in a long time. It is appreciated. We may differ on our views, but you have my respect. |
Quote:
As for your Supreme Court argument. One response. Dred Scott. That one surely didn't hold up. The Supreme Court hands down opinions. Congress makes the laws. And unconstitutional laws are not laws. Now regarding the 2nd. Gary, do your homework. This country was founded as a response to tyranny under the rule of king, it was not setting up a new king and his army. Quote:
|
Quote:
Do you know why abortion is legal in every state? Because the Supreme Court says so that's why. Do you know why the local police as well as the sheriff's department can raid marijuana stores in states that have legalized it? Because the Supreme Court says we can. Do you know why I had to read every scumbag his Miranda Rights if I wanted to use his statement's in court? Because the Supreme Court told me I had to that's why. If you think The Supreme Court's decision in 1951 is just an "opinion" why don't you and your buddies form a militia group and walk down Pennsylvania Avenue with assault rifles. Shouldn't be a problem right. When the police stop you, just tell them you don't agree with Supreme Courts decision on Dennis vs. The United States and you are headed to overthrow government. Please be sure to report back to lateral-g so I know how that turned out for you. The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation. Its decisions set precedents that all other courts then follow, and no lower court can ever supersede a Supreme Court decision. In fact, not even Congress or the president can change, reject or ignore a Supreme Court decision. American law operates under the doctrine of stare decisis, which means that prior decisions should be maintained -- even if the current court would otherwise rule differently -- and that lower courts must abide by the prior decisions of higher courts. The idea is based on a belief that government needs to be relatively stable and predictable. In regards to me doing my homework on the second amendment, perhaps you can just educate me. Please point me in the direction of a legal document, the article of the Constitution, or any law that over turns the Supreme Court decision of 1951 where it states the people have the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. If you can show me that which is not some quote you found on the internet of some professor's personal opinion, I will bow my head to you and apologize for my ignorance. |
Quote:
|
It's clear you are fascinated with power and authority, so I'm not to argue with that.
If you believe that our rights are granted to us from a federal govt, and the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted by a infallible supreme court, then so be it. I will disagree and tell you that our rights come from our creator and the founders gave us a Republic, not a Democracy, to protect those God given rights. But please enjoy the fact that WA and CO have legalized marijuana. I know that drives you authoritarian types nuts. :D But the 10 amendment > than some Supreme court opinion saying that a federal drug war is "Constitutional". Anyway, I hope at least now you understand that the 2nd wasn't to form a standing army, but to protect individuals from the abuses of one. To understand the Bill of Rights and Constitution is to understand the reason why this country declared independence: Freedom. :flag2: |
Gun control? Forget gun control, I'm now more worried about assault pressure cookers!
Who the hell needs a 6 liter pressure cooker? We all know a 4 liter will suffice a normal family. The 6 liter should be reserved for the military. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
In the end, a 'power' does what it wants, until it no longer has the resources. My hope is that soon enough, it wont be able to as more states join in. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think our problems lie more with the desensitization of our youth to violence. Maybe Im getting old but I've actually found a show on prime-time network TV I wont watch. Despite the great story line, I find the violence and gore present in the show "Hannibal" to be absolutely ridiculous. Add in all the 1st person shooter horror games and gore movies and no wonder we've got so many issues. Were are the parents who let their kids watch this stuff. But even to that point, its getting harder and harder to filter thru all of it as a parent. Nightly news, cartoons for kids and even commercials while watching approved TV cartoon shows are even too much to filter out. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I know my view is neither liked by Pro gun and anti gun supporters. I honestly don't have time to debate the matter word for word with the members here. I will step out of the topic before things get out of hand. Spiffa8 if we ever cross paths we can discuss this topic. I would love to. Also, please include your name calling as well, in person though. There are too many internet bad asses that can get away with name calling behind the safety of their computers. I would like to see if you have the cajones to do it in person. I live in the Los Angeles area and would like to continue the debate with you someday, let me know when. I am out. Please be civil guys. SS. |
I'm through also, Vince hurt my feelings.
|
Garickman I like your responses and yes I am also a gun owner:idea:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Gary
[COLOR="Red"]garickman;480143] The second amendment states "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" When the second amendment was drafted, The United States did not have standing Army. As a result, our new nation depended on on-call militias. Because the people are members of a reserve militia, they keep and own there on military equipment, hence the wording in the second amendment. Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a si -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you really believe our Constitution was not drafted to fend off a tyrannical government you need to talk to some independent Constitutional scholars and spend more time reading how fragile and "out of mainstream" i.e. people really wanted to kill the founders and YES the fear of another tyrannical government drove them to risk there lives to move this independence forward..... |
Quote:
Quote:
"insert the gradual humming of the national anthem" Never appologize for speaking your mind or voicing your opinion. If you cannot do so then all the fighting, the dying that made this country and us free has no meaning and it was seemingly all in vain. Typical antis, you lack the passion required to meet the task. Carry on with the group hug. Oh you can appologize for being a doosh. That's fine. And another thing, I will never push my opinion, I will never tell you what or how to think. I will however give you things to think about and will always have an open mind. And if I hurt your feeling Greg, good, that will help you remember why. LOL |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I blame all this on public school education, and the corporate news networks, where we are taught from a very early age to....
:king: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Not everything I have posted in this thread do I necessarily agree with. I base my arguments on facts as they are today. As I have stated before, there is no law, statute, or Constitutional provision that exists in this country that allows someone to fight domestic tyranny. There is also nothing in the Constitution to suggest the second amendment was enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. Therefore it would not matter if all the independent Constitutional scholars in the world all agreed that defense against a tyrannical government was in fact the basis of the second amendment. Last time I checked a scholar's opinion could not create case law. The only point I have ever tried to get across is a fact, whether we agree or disagree, it is a fact that as of today can not be disputed. The fact is the the only entity today that can interpret the Constitution is the United States Supreme Court, and when they hand down a decision in regards to the Constitution it becomes case law and it can not be disputed. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
What car?? I see no build thread??? Baahhhhhaaaaa |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Actually I think (uh oh, that's where this all got started, people thinking!!) that of all the people posting in this thread, there is probably only one that actually "knows" what he is talking about. Or at least more than anyone else... The guy not even from here, Andrew. I believe that his "opinion" is probably more "on target" than anyone else's here about our own history and government! :thumbsup:
Now back to the :catfight: LOL! |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Lateral-g.net