Lateral-g Forums

Lateral-g Forums (https://www.lateral-g.net/forums/index.php)
-   Off Topic Forums (https://www.lateral-g.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   Your views on guns. (https://www.lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php?t=41294)

Sieg 05-14-2013 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garickman (Post 480297)
WHAT!! That A** H*** has my car in his shop. That's going to change:warning:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vince@MSperfab (Post 480309)
:action-smiley-027:

What car?? I see no build thread??? Baahhhhhaaaaa

Priceless! :thumbsup:

Spiffav8 05-14-2013 11:50 PM

Guys I've exchanged a few PM's with Supersport and he's actually be fairly cool. While I still disagree with his view (as it was posted), he is willing to share it and it brings up some interesting questions that I would honestly like to hear more on and possibly learn from.

Supersports views don't make him a Moron and I was wrong for jumping on that. I do not know him other than here on Lateral-G and to the best of my knowledge he has never caused an issue. So far as I know he is a good man as was his intent. I owe him the chance to prove himself one way or the other. Who knows maybe he and I will be drinking Pacifico's or cruising around SEMA admiring cars in the near future.

If you are missing it, I am admitting I was wrong and I am apologizing to him for the moron comment.

ProTouring442 05-15-2013 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garickman (Post 480291)
The problem with independent Constitution scholars is that they all have different opinions on what our founding fathers intentions were in the drafting of the Constitution. Granted these scholars have a far far greater amount of knowledge than I have or ever will have for that matter. I agree that if one is an expert of the Constitution and of the Federalist Papers, the history of the United States, Shays Rebellion, the whiskey rebellion, etc. they could probably come up with a very educated opinion on what the intentions were of our founding fathers. The problem is it would still just be an opinion.

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.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." -James Madison

And if you look at this; "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," in light of this; "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security," it becomes quite apparent as to the how and why of the Second Amendment.


But let's not take my word for it, let's look at what our founders and other men of their ilk had to say...

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." -George Mason

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country." -James Madison

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -Elbridge Gerry

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -Thomas Paine

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Mahatma Gandhi

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?" -Patrick Henry

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." -Thomas Jefferson

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -Aristotle

"There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men." -Robert A. Heinlein

" ... the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law." -Martin Luther King Jr

"A free people ought to be armed." -George Washington

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -George Washington

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." -John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." -Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." -Noah Webster

“A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." -James Madison


"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone." -James Madison

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." -Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." -Patrick Henry

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -St. George Tucker

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." -Joseph Story

" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." -Alexander Hamilton

In decem ibi libertas!
Servabit nos nostram libertatem!
Bill

andrewb70 05-15-2013 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shmoov69 (Post 480329)
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!

Thanks Jimmy. I guess I have a unique perspective on being an American, because I am an immigrant. When I took the oath of citizenship, I took it seriously, unlike many politicians.

If anyone has a little time, I suggest reading the article by Gary North:

http://www.garynorth.com/public/10459.cfm

Enjoy...

I would like to add that anyone that believes that the US Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is constitutional and what isn't was lied to in school. That's like having my brother being the judge in a dispute between myself and a third party. Furthermore, the three pillars that make up the triad of the division of power, are not the Judicial, Executive and the Legislative branches of the Federal government. This is another lie that is widely taught in schools. The real three pillars of the division of power are the Federal government, State governments, and The People.


Also, with respect the the Federal Supramacy clause, yes, Federal law does trump state law, BUT, only with respect to the specific powers that are granted to the Federal government in the Constitution, and no others. I know many of the folks here believe it to be otherwise, but again, you were lied to in school.

Andrew

GregWeld 05-15-2013 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiffav8 (Post 480368)
If you are missing it, I am admitting I was wrong and I am apologizing to him for the moron comment.





Good! Because you needed to.



The beauty of LAT-G has ALWAYS been it's ability to be a great forum WITHOUT the sniping, and hostility, of other internet forums.

RussMurco 05-15-2013 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb70 (Post 480299)
Just to liven things up....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,3022693.story

LOL...

Andrew

Yes, gun ownership is way up over the last 20 years and gun crime is way down... Is that a pattern?? :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by garickman (Post 480291)
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.

Maybe it's just me but I can't think of any entity that would endorse a means of it's own demise...

Tony_SS 05-15-2013 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenworks (Post 480438)
Maybe it's just me but I can't think of any entity that would endorse a means of it's own demise...

Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb70 (Post 480412)

Also, with respect the the Federal Supramacy clause, yes, Federal law does trump state law, BUT, only with respect to the specific powers that are granted to the Federal government in the Constitution, and no others. I know many of the folks here believe it to be otherwise, but again, you were lied to in school.

Andrew

Yes, that one is widely misunderstood. They are only supreme in the enumerated powers specifically delegated to them in the Constitution, not in the powers that they just assume are theirs for the taking. If that was the case, there would be no reason to have states at all.

garickman 05-15-2013 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiffav8 (Post 480368)
Guys I've exchanged a few PM's with Supersport and he's actually be fairly cool. While I still disagree with his view (as it was posted), he is willing to share it and it brings up some interesting questions that I would honestly like to hear more on and possibly learn from.

Supersports views don't make him a Moron and I was wrong for jumping on that. I do not know him other than here on Lateral-G and to the best of my knowledge he has never caused an issue. So far as I know he is a good man as was his intent. I owe him the chance to prove himself one way or the other. Who knows maybe he and I will be drinking Pacifico's or cruising around SEMA admiring cars in the near future.

If you are missing it, I am admitting I was wrong and I am apologizing to him for the moron comment.

Glad to hear Curtis. The exchange between you and SuperSport is a perfect example of why I am ducking out of this thread and why I should have never let myself gut sucked into it.

It is nearly impossible to have a meaningful debate over the internet. Too many things taken out of context, too many people "reading" into something that just isn't there and too many people jumping in on the middle of the conversation with out knowing what got the conversation to that point in the first place. All of which I myself have been guilty of. The only way to have a meaningful and educated debate is face to face where everyone is involved from the start and nothing can be taken out of context. And if needed you can whoop someone's a**:catfight: (That last line was my attempt at humor not to be taken seriously)

Anyway time to start a build thread!

Bucketlist2012 05-15-2013 11:37 AM

Glad you guys worked it out..

LatG is too Important a website to get all twisted about any issues, including guns...:grouphug:

SuperSport 05-15-2013 01:11 PM

Spiffav8 I appreciate you saying this publicly and not in a P.M.
I would like to apologize to everyone here for going too far as well.

The only thing I will say is that I gave my opinion on guns in a thread titled "your view on guns". My opinion has not changed and I only spoke on what I saw with my own personal experiences. I did not document my life in this country so, no, I do not have facts. I don't know what other facts anyone needs other than the opinions I shared are mine.

I think people had an issue with the word irresponsible gun owners. It seemed to me that people felt that irresponsible gun owners do not exist, only criminals.
When I here of cases like George Zimmerman (which I can explain at another time). Zimmerman and people such as this, I call (again just me in my own opinion) irresponsible gun owners.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/ken...ntial-shooting

camcojb 05-15-2013 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperSport (Post 480505)
When I here of cases like George Zimmerman (which I can explain at another time). Zimmerman and people such as this, I call (again just me in my own opinion) irresponsible gun owners.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/ken...ntial-shooting

Your link is an example of an irresponsible gun owner. There's three simple rules that if followed, would eliminate all accidental shootings.

1. Always point the gun in a safe direction

2. Never put your finger on the trigger until ready to shoot.

3. Always leave gun empty until ready to use.





I'll also throw in to treat EVERY gun as if loaded. If someone is accidently shot then one or more of the listed rules was broken. None of this helps with the linked example above; but rules were broken nonetheless and some people need to be more responsible with their firearms.

No idea how George gets lumped in with that.

mexMan 05-15-2013 02:40 PM

I'm just going to jump in and say it. Giving a 5 year old a gun for his birthday is just plain stupid. Giving a kid education and proper training on guns, THAT'S different (I say), but, just giving a kid a freaking shotgun, my God. And now that we're talking about it, have you guys considered giving your kids gun safety education? Just a question, that's something else I'd like to know how you feel about.

Spiffav8 05-15-2013 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mexMan (Post 480523)
I'm just going to jump in and say it. Giving a 5 year old a gun for his birthday is just plain stupid. Giving a kid education and proper training on guns, THAT'S different (I say), but, just giving a kid a freaking shotgun, my God. And now that we're talking about it, have you guys considered giving your kids gun safety education? Just a question, that's something else I'd like to know how you feel about.


I would have to say that the parents (and legal owners of the gun) where irresponsible in this situation. Of course there is very little info on how the gun was stored and no info on how the child was taught. Obviously it was stored wrong as it was loaded and the child was able to gain access to it. Oh and just to keep things straight...it was a .22 caliber single shot, not a shotgun. Oh and yeah 5 is way to young if you ask me.

Personally, I don't have any issue with giving a young person a gun as a gift. But that age is dependent on the person, in that everyone matures differently. With safety always being first and foremost in my mind, a gift of that sort would come with the means to safely store it. All of my guns (with the exception of my daily carry) are kept unloaded and in a safe. I don't have kids, but it still keeps them from being easily accessible. I'm sure there is some criminal out there that can get into my safe or worked out in Prison so much that he could carry it away, but it's the best I can do.

I think Supersport is saying (and correct me if I am wrong) that Zimmerman appears to have acted irresponsible and that perhaps having a gun gave him a false sense of....authority or control? I THINK that's where he's going and if so I understand that. I've come across that type that seem to think they are king of the heap and have control due to the fact that they carry a gun. Wouldn't matter if it was a legal or illegal gun in that situation.

I like how Jody laid out the core basics of handling a firearm. IMHO the number one thing a person needs to do is educate them self on the subject. The basics are great, but being responsible goes far beyond the range. Obviously mindset and storage are two areas that are just important.

We have plenty of military law enforcement types here that could shed a lot more light on this than me (and I hope they will). Anyone care to weigh in on their view of a responsible gun owner?

camcojb 05-15-2013 03:52 PM

I think we can call this one done. I appreciate everyone working out their differences, and hopefully the original poster found the answer to his question.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Lateral-g.net