|
Post by Gumbyhawk on Mar 24, 2008 9:29:44 GMT -6
I am all for some better background checks, but otherwise opposed to "gun control". It would be nice just once to read about some citizen SHOOTING BACK when one of these whack-jobs goes off and threatens/kills innocent people.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 24, 2008 9:34:17 GMT -6
It would be nice just once to read about some citizen SHOOTING BACK when one of these whack-jobs goes off and threatens/kills innocent people. I don't see how allowing everyone to carry a gun would have helped in today's IC situation. In this case, his proximity to a gun likely contributed to the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 24, 2008 9:39:00 GMT -6
You need some middle ground in there. There is no way in hell that everyone on an airplane should be allowed to carry a gun. Also, no way in hell should convicted felons be toting guns around.
|
|
|
Post by Gumbyhawk on Mar 24, 2008 9:41:10 GMT -6
Not really in today's situation, but in general.
Also, IMO... this nutjob would have killed whether he had a gun or not. Not having access to a gun probably wouldn't have stopped him.
|
|
|
Post by Gumbyhawk on Mar 24, 2008 9:43:06 GMT -6
You need some middle ground in there. There is no way in hell that everyone on an airplane should be allowed to carry a gun. Also, no way in hell should convicted felons be toting guns around. Yeah, you're right. I should have stipulated "normal, law-abiding citizens". My point is this: are you for or against gun control?
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Mar 24, 2008 9:56:16 GMT -6
You need some middle ground in there. There is no way in hell that everyone on an airplane should be allowed to carry a gun. Also, no way in hell should convicted felons be toting guns around. Yeah, you're right. I should have stipulated "normal, law-abiding citizens". My point is this: are you for or against gun control? I have a gun in my home, but I am for gun control.
|
|
|
Post by BlckKnghtHwk on Mar 24, 2008 9:56:24 GMT -6
I am for citizens carrying guns but I am also for gun control. If we allow guns, then it needs to be controlled, i.e. who can carry, who can purchase,etc...
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 24, 2008 10:20:27 GMT -6
I am for citizens carrying guns but I am also for gun control. If we allow guns, then it needs to be controlled, i.e. who can carry, who can purchase,etc... And that's where the giant precipice lies... Whom decides the controls? What entirely subjective criteria would be enacted to judge whether someone is allowed to carry a gun. Are there always going to be exceptions to whatever rules are created? I think so. ......Thus, we're back to where we started. While it's nice to think in terms of the noblesse in coming to the nation's defense in case of invasion - those days are long bince past, and the forming of militias can be done in other ways. On the other side, those words cannot be - nor should ever be removed. So I think we're locked in this perpetual argument over people's rights to own a gun vs. how those rights are interpreted and enforced. ----While anything less than a full ability to own whatever one wants, regardless of their mental faculties or the technological advances of the weaponry... is against the common interpretation of vague words written in our Constitution... --The common sense argument for some regulation is rehashed every time some nut utilizes those rights. Perhaps we should debate the Chicken or the Egg.
|
|
|
Post by BlckKnghtHwk on Mar 24, 2008 11:29:21 GMT -6
Agreed. If given the choice and I had to choose between allowing anyone to carry guns or noone to carry guns, I think I would fall into the allowed side of the fence.
|
|
|
Post by Gumbyhawk on Mar 24, 2008 11:34:46 GMT -6
I think most of us would say that IF we could be assured that only good, honest, law-abiding, moral people had the guns... that would be great.
However, that's the rub.
|
|
|
Post by ignatiusreilly on Mar 24, 2008 11:42:55 GMT -6
I'm for guns. I like to hunt and it's a right guaranteed by the constitution.
I'm against people who think that if you elect a democrat, then "they'll take our guns away". These people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Actually know a guy who said he wanted to see Hillary and Obama killed. I asked why and he said, "Cuz they'll take our guns away". <-- Now I know why the left calls the right ignorant.
I asked him when he heard either candidate say they would take guns away. Of course he didn't know. Then I started trying to reassure him about his rifles and shotguns by talking about checks and balances and the constitution, but he just glazed over. Oh well...
|
|
|
Post by Gumbyhawk on Mar 24, 2008 11:45:29 GMT -6
I'm for guns. I like to hunt and it's a right guaranteed by the constitution. I'm against people who think that if you elect a democrat, then "they'll take our guns away". These people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Actually know a guy who said he wanted to see Hillary and Obama killed. I asked why and he said, "Cuz they'll take our guns away". <-- Now I know why the left calls the right ignorant. I asked him when he heard either candidate say they would take guns away. Of course he didn't know. Then I started trying to reassure him about his rifles and shotguns by talking about checks and balances and the constitution, but he just glazed over. Oh well... I know a guy who thinks the same... that Dems will take his guns away. When asked how many guns he lost during Bill Clinton's presidency, he didn't have much to say.
|
|
|
Post by The Bluzmn on Mar 24, 2008 12:11:25 GMT -6
Gun control is being able to hit your target.
My problem is with states (like Iowa) where it is virtually impossible to get a carry permit.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Mar 24, 2008 12:16:30 GMT -6
I find it funny that most righties are "strict Constitutionalists" when it comes to the constitution, yet not when it comes to the 2nd amendment. It reads:
"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."
It says right there, in plain english and in black and white, that the government has the right to regulate militias, and therefore, regulate arms. If you want to be really specific about it, the Constitution does not give you the right to have guns for sport, hunting, or home protection...the right is only granted for regulated militias.
If the writers of this amendment wanted people to carry guns without restirctions, they would not have written in the part about militias.
|
|
|
Post by poncho72 on Mar 24, 2008 12:30:13 GMT -6
per the Press Citizen
Police arrived at the scene and found the house unlocked. They entered the home, fearing for the family's safety, and found the bodies of Sheryl Sueppel and her four children. Sueppel's husband, Steven Sueppel, wasn't there and the family's tan Toyota Sienna minivan was missing. Police haven't confirmed the cause of death, but did say that the incident was not a shooting.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 24, 2008 12:38:44 GMT -6
No, "regulated" modifies militia. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what shall not be infringed.
Of course, with the intellectual bankruptcy of the far left that created penumbral rights to fetucide and promotes race based discrimination under the guise of affirmative action in contradiction of the plain language of the 14th Amendment, I'm not surprised that now the loony left has found a way to tell themselves that the founding fathers intended to regulate arms by reading the "shall not be infringed" clause out of the 2nd Amendment.
Ultimately, the downfall of truly strict constructionism is that everyone has to admit that certain Amendments were in no way intended to be absolutist in nature, as the plain text of the First Amendment would clearly allow threats, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and defamation related torts and the plain text of the Second Amendment would allow a person standing trial to tote a firearm into the courthouse with him and point it at each witness testifying against him.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 24, 2008 12:41:03 GMT -6
per the Press Citizen Police arrived at the scene and found the house unlocked. They entered the home, fearing for the family's safety, and found the bodies of Sheryl Sueppel and her four children. Sueppel's husband, Steven Sueppel, wasn't there and the family's tan Toyota Sienna minivan was missing. Police haven't confirmed the cause of death, but did say that the incident was not a shooting. I wonder how long until the liberals seek to outlaw hands, knives or whatever other instrument this sicko used to do this.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 24, 2008 12:55:56 GMT -6
per the Press Citizen Police arrived at the scene and found the house unlocked. They entered the home, fearing for the family's safety, and found the bodies of Sheryl Sueppel and her four children. Sueppel's husband, Steven Sueppel, wasn't there and the family's tan Toyota Sienna minivan was missing. Police haven't confirmed the cause of death, but did say that the incident was not a shooting. I wonder how long until the liberals seek to outlaw hands, knives or whatever other instrument this sicko used to do this. OK dumbass -- would that be the majority that voted (informally above) against guns? Or is the paranoia creep seeping into your subconscious again? ...Because I've failed to read any paeans from my liberal brethren wanting airplanes to be banned post 9/11. To the contrary, the GOP initiated welfare and subsidies given to the airlines is a defacto endorsement of these actions.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 24, 2008 13:02:59 GMT -6
Uhhh, haven't liberals written op-ed pieces after every mass shooting in the past decade or so begging for more gun control? The justification is always the same - guns kill people. In this case, something other than guns killed people, if liberals don't immediately seek to outlaw whatever that something is, lives will be at risk.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 24, 2008 13:15:39 GMT -6
Uhhh, haven't liberals written op-ed pieces after every mass shooting in the past decade or so begging for more gun control? The justification is always the same - guns kill people. In this case, something other than guns killed people, if liberals don't immediately seek to outlaw whatever that something is, lives will be at risk. And conservatives have written counter-letters touting the effectiveness of full (or semi) automatic action in crowd control situations. The big difference is that us liberals view things a bit differently... While every conservative wants everyone to have a gun, every liberal wishes only those deemed as mentally competent and well reasoned be allowed to do so... which, of course, excludes all conservatives from gun ownership.
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Mar 24, 2008 13:16:04 GMT -6
per the Press Citizen Police arrived at the scene and found the house unlocked. They entered the home, fearing for the family's safety, and found the bodies of Sheryl Sueppel and her four children. Sueppel's husband, Steven Sueppel, wasn't there and the family's tan Toyota Sienna minivan was missing. Police haven't confirmed the cause of death, but did say that the incident was not a shooting. I wonder how long until the liberals seek to outlaw hands, knives or whatever other instrument this sicko used to do this. Ahh, yes. Paranoia, the battle cry of the Neoconservatives! The liberals will take away everything!!! ahhhhhh! What would the republicans do without the ability to pander to fears and prejudices? Guns are everywhere. It's far easier to get a gun than a doctor's appointment in this country for many. Clinton was president for eight years, do we still have guns? Yes. People are getting picked off by handguns at an alarming rate...certainly far more than legitimate uses for self defense. Furthermore, there are numerous studies that point to owning a handgun being directly related to you or your child being shot. But then again, the truth is not what matters to the conservatives. They've got Charleton Heston to listen to. ...and Bill O' Loofah. I'm not advocating for removing people's guns. Having said that, the right's argument "from my cold, dead fingers" lacks a certain realistic element, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Mar 24, 2008 14:42:26 GMT -6
No, "regulated" modifies militia. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what shall not be infringed. Modifies militias? if the militia part does not apply to the bearing arms part, there is no reason to have it there. No, if the right to bear (that's right, I spelled it that way) arms did not apply to militias, then they would not have added the part about militias into the amendment. Maybe they thought militas were a great idea to preserve a free state, and decided to toss it in a totally unrelated amendment, but I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Mar 24, 2008 15:40:52 GMT -6
I find it funny that most righties are "strict Constitutionalists" when it comes to the constitution, yet not when it comes to the 2nd amendment. It reads: "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." It says right there, in plain english and in black and white, that the government has the right to regulate militias, and therefore, regulate arms. If you want to be really specific about it, the Constitution does not give you the right to have guns for sport, hunting, or home protection...the right is only granted for regulated militias. If the writers of this amendment wanted people to carry guns without restirctions, they would not have written in the part about militias. 1. The word "regulated" does not mean "regulated by a group of big government knuckle-draggers who tell you what rights you can and can't have." It refers to a well-trained or well-ordered militia. 2. It's not about being "strict constructionalist" (sic), it's about giving the words the ordinary meaning they meant to have. Even such diehards liberals as Larry Tribe, Barack H. Obama and barber agree that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right that isn't limited to militias. 3. What does "shall not be infringed" modify in your world? At the very least, the right of these supposedly "regulated" militias to bear arms can't be infringed upon, but what right do they have if they can be regulated? Your argument doesn't make sense. 4. There are other areas where the framers included an antecedent clause that wasn't meant to eliminate the entire meaning of the operative provision e.g. the delegation under Section 8 to Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Does that mean that copyright law can only cover works that promote science and the useful arts?
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Mar 24, 2008 16:33:32 GMT -6
I never said that I do not think the 2nd amendment gives ordinary, non-militia citizens the right to firearms. While it does not forbid guns to those outside of militias, it certainly does not guarentee the right to anyone outside of a militia.
I was just pointing out the irony of SC's who do not understand the entire amendment. Militias were extremely relevant back when this amendment was written. However, since they are not relevant anymore, people ignore that part, although it is an essential part of the amendment. The argement could be made that it is as relevant as quartering soilders.
And since you brought up meaning, the reason it was in the constitution in the first place is because the British crown was forcibly disarming the American militias, to keep them from rebelling against them. This amendment was not designed to protect people, it was designed to protect the People (the rights of the citizens) from their own government.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 24, 2008 16:37:24 GMT -6
3. What does "shall not be infringed" modify in your world? At the very least, the right of these supposedly "regulated" militias to bear arms can't be infringed upon, but what right do they have if they can be regulated? Your argument doesn't make sense. Infringed meant something entirely different back then. They just didn't want anybody adding these things on their muskets...
|
|