GTA

Politics and Religion => Politics And Religion Discussion => : Hermie December 23, 2008, 05:39:28 PM

: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Hermie December 23, 2008, 05:39:28 PM
From what I've heard, most gun owners are conservatives. I'm a liberal and an environmentalist, planning to become a Wildlife Biologist. And yet.. I've fallen in love with a machine that throws projectiles at fast speeds and puts holes in things. :P

I keep hearing about how Obama might take your guns away and all that, but I really think some people are just paranoid. Gun ownership is a protected right. I REALLY doubt Obama is going to do anything to take away people's guns.

The only thing I can see is making automatic weapons illegal. I see no reason why people need automatic weapons. They're pretty pointless for hunting... But they do look cool. (Of course, wants and needs are two different things.) I'm all for someone having an automatic weapon with a special permit and a certificate from a saftey course.

Most of the guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, anyway...

My question is... What is people's big problem with gun control? You can still get your gun, but it just takes a while. I'm not going to mind a 2 week waiting period. It'll just make finally getting it that much more enjoyable. I'm not seeing what the fuss is all about. Someone care to explain? And please, keep a level, mature head.
: RE: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: JWC December 23, 2008, 09:10:45 PM
From what I've heard, most gun owners are conservatives.

I'm more of a "classical liberal," which isn't really the same thing as today's liberal (or many of today's conservatives, for that matter).  In a nutshell: I believe that society should be organized in a manner which respects the rights to life, liberty, and property, and that any government should be held to the same standard as individuals in respecting those rights.  I believe the government should be as small as possible, and stay out of the way as much as possible; I do not support the idea of the "nanny state."  I believe the U.S. should be following the Constitution, and I think our federal government has long been overstepping its bounds, there.  I believe in laissez-faire economics and sound (not fiat) monetary policy; the government should be "hands off."  (Again, I think we have long been disrupting the free market with things like fiat money and such.)  Like most of the founders, I harbor a profound suspicion of government and its tendency to bloat, mutate, and expand.  I think the Constitution was designed to limit government and protect us from this, and that we have often failed to be vigilant and live up to our part of the bargain.  On foreign policy, I favor free trade and communication while avoiding alliances and wars not related to self-defense.  Like George Washington, I favor avoiding "foreign entanglements."  Like Thomas Jefferson, I favor "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."  Like John Quincy Adams, I believe that our nation acts properly when it "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

I'm a liberal and an environmentalist, planning to become a Wildlife Biologist.

Wildlife biologist, huh?  Pretty cool.

The only thing I can see is making automatic weapons illegal.

As a general rule, they already are considered illegal.  See here for details (http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=130).  (As a tangential point, the right to bear arms isn't mainly about hunting or sporting purposes.)

Most of the guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, anyway...

Yep.  

My question is... What is people's big problem with gun control?

Also, see here. (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=192&issue=010)
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: dave2288 December 24, 2008, 02:50:26 AM
i completely agree with jwc...i think he covered all of the main points...
: RE: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: tat2dman December 24, 2008, 02:57:45 AM
Can me say NON-productive!
: RE: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Hermie December 24, 2008, 06:08:48 AM
Good info, and thanks. I can see what the fuss is about. A $200 tax is really dumb. Mobs in the time HAD money to afford the SMGs. All it did was make them harder to get for the general public...

Special courses and licenses would be much better to determine if a shooter is planning on blowing someone away with it than a blind $200 tax.

Maybe I should write to Congress and suggest a revision of the laws...
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Gene_SC December 24, 2008, 06:21:51 AM
For sure our government has over stepped it's bounds. We are losing our rights bit by bit. Elected officials are corrupt and are sponsored by corporations. In a since corporation dictate our economy.
: RE: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: JWC December 24, 2008, 07:50:58 AM
Special courses and licenses would be much better to determine if a shooter is planning on blowing someone away with it than a blind $200 tax.  Maybe I should write to Congress and suggest a revision of the laws...

Keep in mind points 15, 16, 18, and 20 from this article (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=192&issue=010).  Also, consider whether it's advisable (not to mention practical and realistic) for a law to be written with the intent of determining what someone is thinking.
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Hermie December 24, 2008, 06:41:22 PM
Hmm... The NRA brings up some good points, but what irritates me is the lack of comprimise. They see things as black and white.

I'm all for a total tear-down and rebuild of this government, and probably would have started a movement if McCain was in (Another 4 years of Bush's policies? HELL NO.), but since Obama was elected, I'll see if he keeps his promise of change. If not.. I'll start a movement anyway. I'm tired of the way this government is working... After all, people should not fear their government, but a government should fear its people.
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: JWC December 24, 2008, 07:11:00 PM
Hmm... The NRA brings up some good points, but what irritates me is the lack of comprimise. They see things as black and white.

What, in particular, are you referring to?  (Not saying you're wrong, necessarily -- just curious.)

...(Another 4 years of Bush's policies? HELL NO.), but since Obama was elected, I'll see if he keeps his promise of change.

Frankly, I'll be stunned if Obama's administration ushers in real change.  Obama's initial cabinet picks seem to be part of the Democratic old guard -- no real change, there.  I don't see Obama proposing any significant change is our economic policies: like Bush and McCain, he supports the bailout and nationalization policies our government has been pursuing.  I don't see him pulling us out of Afghanistan or Iraq, and he's said that nothing is off the table as far as Iran.  I expect more of the same kinds of policies that we've had for the last several decades:  more government, less freedom, et cetera.  Under McCain, I'd have expected continuing expansion of government, nationalization, et cetera.  Under Obama, I expect the same, just accelerated.  Different details, of course, but the same general trend.

After all, people should not fear their government, but a government should fear its people.

Yes, I agree.
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Hermie December 24, 2008, 07:32:14 PM
The feel I get from reading the NRA page is that they're pretty much saying "No laws barring ownership of guns, period."


Point 18:
"The problem with mandatory gun safety training is that it can so easily be used to interfere with someone's choice to own a firearm. "Safety" training can be used improperly to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms."

Just like that. They're SO paranoid that ANY law about guns are taking away thier rights. It's ridiculous.
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: JWC December 24, 2008, 09:13:52 PM
The feel I get from reading the NRA page is that they're pretty much saying "No laws barring ownership of guns, period."

Well, I can't argue with a feeling, but the NRA doesn't say that.  They address that charge (i.e. that the NRA opposes all gun control law, including reasonable measures), here (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=209#FABLE%20III:).  (Actually, that whole article is worth reading.)


Point 18:
"The problem with mandatory gun safety training is that it can so easily be used to interfere with someone's choice to own a firearm. "Safety" training can be used improperly to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms."

Just like that. They're SO paranoid that ANY law about guns are taking away thier rights. It's ridiculous.

I think you're reading more into it than the NRA is saying.  The quote, above, is true: such laws can be used to improperly infringe upon rights, and that's something that should be examined and considered when looking at gun laws.  I'd characterize it more as vigilance and awareness of how government and laws tend to expand (especially given the very active anti-gun lobby), rather than paranoia.
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: WBZsDAD December 25, 2008, 01:39:32 AM
Obama promised to get the truck unstuck before he actually got to the swamp and saw the situation.
: RE: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: moon December 25, 2008, 05:56:16 AM
JWC, I agree with everything you said except the part what you call yourself.  You don't sound very liberal to me.   You sound like a Libertarian.  


Even the threat of gun control is making a lot of people excited.  When you have a government run by a bunch of city boy lawyers, you get weird laws.  I don't know how they can push gun control when history has taught such harsh lessons about it.
: RE: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: JWC December 25, 2008, 06:32:49 AM
JWC, I agree with everything you said except the part what you call yourself.  You don't sound very liberal to me.   You sound like a Libertarian.

No surprise, there. :)  The Wikipedia article on 'classical liberalism' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism) says:
Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism, laissez-faire liberalism, market liberalism or, outside the United States, simply liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited. The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism, which promotes a more interventionist role for the state in economic matters.

Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman, are credited with influencing a revival of classical liberalism in the twentieth century after it fell out of favor beginning in the late nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century.  In relation to economic issues, this revival is sometimes referred to, mainly by its opponents, as "neoliberalism". The German "ordoliberalism" has a whole different meaning, since the likes of Alexander Rüstow and Wilhelm Röpke have advocated a more interventionist state, as opposed to laissez-faire liberals. Classical liberalism has many aspects in common with modern libertarianism, with the terms being used almost interchangeably by those who support limited government.


I've thought of myself as a classical liberal for a while.  However, I've been reading Rothbard, lately, and he makes an appealing and persuasive case that is probably pulling me more towards a "purer" libertarian philosophy with even less tolerance for statism.
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Hermie December 25, 2008, 06:41:36 AM
Interesting to know the NRA helped write some laws. But I just can't shake that feeling of paranoia they convey. Adding the words "so easlily" in Point 18 makes them sound paranoid. I don't see how teaching someone the proper safety procedures regarding firearms is going to infringe on anyone's rights. If anything, it'll make them more cautious shooters and reduce the number of accidents by novice shooters.
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Progun December 25, 2008, 07:32:43 AM
Hey Hermie, Maybe you just don't understand that paranoia really means "an UNREASONABLE fear or suspicion". The National Rifle Association has had a long history of very reasonable with just cause suspicion of policy makers who don't even hide their attempts with a facade in their attempts to legislate gun owners out of their constitutionally protected RIGHTS. The National Rifle Association and their affiliated instructors have taught more people how to safely handle and lawfully use firearms than ANY other group or any so called STATE or FEDERAL training programs. Just look to the CMP, Eddie Eagle, Police and Military shooting programs for examples.All of this free training comes from Volunteers who are not supported by tax dollars. The "problem" that you blindly fail to see is that you are willing to concede (what is) a Constitutionally protected RIGHT  be given away to become a State or Municipal priviledge. My advice to you: Join the National Rifle Association TODAY! You don't have to remain IGNORANT about what your "inalienable" Rights are nor should you be willing to give away your RIGHTS for a false sense of security.C'mon Hermie, LEARN about U.S. history and the National Rifle Association and all that they do and have done to protect the rights of All Americans.Just do it.
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: JWC December 25, 2008, 07:51:08 AM
I don't see how teaching someone the proper safety procedures regarding firearms is going to infringe on anyone's rights. If anything, it'll make them more cautious shooters and reduce the number of accidents by novice shooters.

You're correct that teaching proper safety doesn't infringe on rights; no one will argue that, and no one will argue that safety instruction is a bad idea.  However, the danger isn't in the instruction.  The danger is a government requirement for instruction as a condition on a constitutional right (as contrasted against a privilege which is not a constitutional right, like driving an automobile).  Once such a law establishes that the government has the authority to do this, it is relatively easy to expand and change the requirement.  That is the danger that undermines the very purpose of the constitutional right.

The government has no "default authority" over a constitutional right.  That is, by default, you have a right to freedom from imprisonment.  You can lose that right and the state can imprison you, but the point is that you start out with the right; by default, you are free.  You do not have to prove your responsibility and lack of threat to society before the right is in effect.  Similarly, you have the right to bear arms.  It is reasonable to say that this right might be curtailed if you show yourself to be incapable of exercising it responsibly (thus, laws restricting a convicted criminal's access to firearms), but by default, the right is yours.  You shouldn't have to prove yourself to the government before being allowed the right.  This is the distinction between a right and privilege.  If we allow the government to start redefining our rights as privileges that are granted to us by the state, all history tells us that we will lose them.  Our rights are not granted by the state, our rights exist prior to the state.  The Constitution enumerates our rights as a protection against the government.
: 2nd amendment is infringed already!
: 3n00n December 25, 2008, 03:10:47 PM
1934 NFA (http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm) & 1968 GCA (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Zimring68.htm) already allow the g'mnt to Lord bigger betterwar machines over the sheeple. (http://../jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif)
`
That's just a clue, next being: thought police that inter the sheeple (http://"thread-view.asp?tid=9012)at the controlcamps!
`
Of course, that's what it's all about, right?
`
Less responsibility.
`
More CONTROL!
(http://../jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif)
: RE: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: TCups December 25, 2008, 03:41:11 PM
Dear GTA Friends:

Have you forgotten that just a few short months ago, the Constitutional interpretation that Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights guaranteed the right to bear arms only as it pertained to "a well-regulated militia" (ie, government regulated militia) was struck down by a 5 to 4 vote?  One Supreme Court Justice appointment to a liberal judge who wants gun control is all it will take to overturn the 2nd amendment without a shot being fired, so to speak.  And then the Constitution be D********ed, as it won't be what the Constitution says, but instead, what the liberal activist judges on the Supreme Court say it says.  

I certainly don't have a very good feeling about the federal justices Obama and the Democratic majority are likely to appoint en mass in just the next few months.  If you are an American who believes in the 2nd amendment and the right of individual citizens to bear arms, better support the NRA, irrespective of any other political position.
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Hermie December 25, 2008, 06:24:00 PM
JWC, you have a good point about the "default right" thing, but I need to bring this up.

When the Constitution was written, everyone had muzzle-loading muskets! The tech of the day was very low, like a gunpowder BB gun. I don't know if the framers had today's society in mind. It was written when we just became a country, and they were thinking about what things they didn't like about England and how not to become them. (Even though we slowly are in more ways than one... *coughchurchandstatecough*) In the time, we were fighting for freedom, so they wanted to make sure that if someone tried to attack them, everyone was ready.

I believe that gun ownership IS an individual right, but the intent of the framers is lost in today's society. We don't need the Minutemen anymore. But regardless, gun ownership is a right that can't be taken away without an amendment altering the 2nd Amendment.

I'm an airgun owner, Democrat, Constitutionalist, supporter of rights, but not NRA material. I know very well what inalienable rights we as Americans have, and speak out for them. I speak out strongly against Prop 8 and directly quote the Constitution, for example, but that's as far as I'll go on that topic in this thread.
: RE: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: JWC December 25, 2008, 06:45:44 PM
Have you forgotten that just a few short months ago, the Constitutional interpretation that Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights guaranteed the right to bear arms only as it pertained to "a well-regulated militia" (ie, government regulated militia) was struck down by a 5 to 4 vote?  One Supreme Court Justice appointment to a liberal judge who wants gun control is all it will take to overturn the 2nd amendment without a shot being fired, so to speak.  And then the Constitution be D********ed, as it won't be what the Constitution says, but instead, what the liberal activist judges on the Supreme Court say it says.

Nope, I haven't forgotten.  Activist and "non-originalist" judges have been a problem since the precedents set by the Marshall court; the approach of the Supreme Court went off in an undesirable direction very early on.  (An excellent and accessible book which talks about the Constitution and its relationship with the Supreme Court is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Constitution-Guides/dp/1596985054/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230275411&sr=8-1), by Kevin R.C. Gutzman.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51nJyT2fziL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

I think that's the real problem with the Supreme Court, and the reason that the appointments have such an undesirably heavy impact on the fundamentals of our government.

I certainly don't have a very good feeling about the federal justices Obama and the Democratic majority are likely to appoint en mass in just the next few months.  If you are an American who believes in the 2nd amendment and the right of individual citizens to bear arms, better support the NRA, irrespective of any other political position.

I agree about the probable appointments of the Obama administration; I don't expect anything good.  I wouldn't have had much confidence in McCain's picks, either, despite his campaign rhetoric.  The Republicans don't have a great track record on judges: seven of the current nine are Republican appointees.  (I have little good to say about President Bush, but I do think his appointments were well-chosen, with the exception of the Miers misstep.)  In August, McCain was asked to name current Supreme Court justices that he would not have nominated, were he President.  He named Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens.  I don't disagree, but I note that, as a senator, he voted voted "Yes" to confirm Bader Ginsberg, Breyer, and Souter (McCain wasn't a senator when Stevens was nominated).  

Obviously, I'm not a supporter of the Democrats or the Republicans.  I tend to take a broader view of politics than many people, and I see the differences as being too small to make a significant difference, like choosing between belladonna and arsenic.  Anyway, I guess that's getting off track.  I definitely agree that the NRA deserves support for its efforts towards preserving our rights.


: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: JWC December 25, 2008, 07:35:29 PM
When the Constitution was written, everyone had muzzle-loading muskets! The tech of the day was very low, like a gunpowder BB gun. I don't know if the framers had today's society in mind. It was written when we just became a country, and they were thinking about what things they didn't like about England and how not to become them...In the time, we were fighting for freedom, so they wanted to make sure that if someone tried to attack them, everyone was ready.  I believe that gun ownership IS an individual right, but the intent of the framers is lost in today's society. We don't need the Minutemen anymore.

The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment wasn't to make sure citizens were ready to repel attacks from unnamed enemies or foreign invaders.  It doesn't do anything to require or insure armed readiness, and a Constitutional amendment wouldn't be necessary for that kind of arrangement, in any case.  The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to positively state the right to bear arms as an inherent right of citizens, to protect that right against actions that would take it away.  An armed citizenry is supposed to be a deterrent towards governmental tyranny.  That's why it's necessary for the security of a "free State," and why it speaks of the right "not being infringed."  (Who would infringe it? The State, itself, of course.)

You're correct that the technology was lower tech.  In fact, the arms that were owned by citizens all over the colonies were pretty much the same as the arms employed by soldiers.  So at that time, the difference between an armed citizen and an armed soldier was much less than it is today, with our laws against automatic weapons and such.  I don't see how the difference is technology, today, lessens the need for the right to bear arms.  (I do question how effective our current level of citizen armament is as a protection against potential government violence, though.)

I speak out strongly against Prop 8 and directly quote the Constitution, for example, but that's as far as I'll go on that topic in this thread.

My take on marriage and government is simple: the government (especially the Federal government) shouldn't be involved at all, and there should be no government entanglement through tax benefits, et cetera.  It would be a matter of religious faith and of private contracts, and government approval/disapproval would simply not be an issue.
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Hermie December 25, 2008, 08:23:20 PM
You're a bit off there. The part about a free state went like this: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," meaning that the militia IS armed readiness against an invasion or threat. The second part deals with guns themselves. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Meaning, the government can't take your guns away, except by a new amendment that modifies the 2nd, which would probably cause a rebellion...

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: JWC December 25, 2008, 09:14:02 PM
You're a bit off there. The part about a free state went like this: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," meaning that the militia IS armed readiness against an invasion or threat.

I agree that the militia concept includes that aspect, and that the history of the militia in the colonies is rooted in that aspect; however, I maintain that the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment isn't to establish or mandate a militia for defense of the state, but to explicitly declare the right to bear arms as a protection against the government.  It's not that I deny the common defense aspect of the militia, but that I think the purpose of the 2nd amendment goes beyond defense against foreign invasion and such; I think the 2nd amendment's primary point is to provide a check against tyranny and arbitrary use of power.

The Wikipedia article you linked mentions both aspects (see especially the "Early Commentary" section).
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Hermie December 26, 2008, 05:51:13 AM
Actually.. After reading more, it's BOTH. The first half is readiness against invasion/threats, and the second is protecting the right of the people to bear arms, keeping in mind other goverments that limited gun ownership.

Though in the evolution of the 2nd Amendment, the first drafts were strictly about the Militias. The right to bear arms came later in the process...

But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.
: RE: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: riflejunkie December 26, 2008, 06:38:53 AM
My first response is that the word is Obama is going to tax ammo into obsolescence.  I saw the government do it with freon and 1-1-1 trichloroethane which were used to carry teflon in suspension for fabric protection among other uses.  Freon is supposedly harmful to the ozone layer but heavier than the atmosphere, so that one never made sense to me.  Talk to a refrigeration expert about using freon in basements if you doubt me.
My next response is that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."  How is gun control not an infringement?  If it is strictly a matter of people being hurt with firearms then I demand the precedent apply equally across the board.  More people are injured by doctors and cars every year than by guns, so lets ban motor vehicles and medicine.  While we are at it more people are injured in athletic events than with guns, so lets ban athletic events of all kinds.  If you are so unafraid of gun control I suggest you check with the aussies and brits who have been stripped of their guns because too many of them were not afraid of gun control.
Hermie - 12/24/2008  1:39 AM

From what I've heard, most gun owners are conservatives. I'm a liberal and an environmentalist, planning to become a Wildlife Biologist. And yet.. I've fallen in love with a machine that throws projectiles at fast speeds and puts holes in things. :P

I keep hearing about how Obama might take your guns away and all that, but I really think some people are just paranoid. Gun ownership is a protected right. I REALLY doubt Obama is going to do anything to take away people's guns.

The only thing I can see is making automatic weapons illegal. I see no reason why people need automatic weapons. They're pretty pointless for hunting... But they do look cool. (Of course, wants and needs are two different things.) I'm all for someone having an automatic weapon with a special permit and a certificate from a saftey course.

Most of the guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, anyway...

My question is... What is people's big problem with gun control? You can still get your gun, but it just takes a while. I'm not going to mind a 2 week waiting period. It'll just make finally getting it that much more enjoyable. I'm not seeing what the fuss is all about. Someone care to explain? And please, keep a level, mature head.
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: JWC December 26, 2008, 11:36:55 PM
Hermie - 12/26/2008  12:51 PM

Actually.. After reading more, it's BOTH. The first half is readiness against invasion/threats, and the second is protecting the right of the people to bear arms...But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

I don't think we're disagreeing by much.  I agree that it's both.  I just think that what the amendment actually does is mainly about the right to bear arms.  That is, it doesn't establish, organize, or mandate a militia, it just notes that one is necessary (and I'd say it's for the security of the people from both external and internal/tyrannical threats).  What it actually does is insure that the right to bear arms isn't infringed.  That's why I consider that the primary thrust of the amendment.
: RE: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: MEHavey December 27, 2008, 03:02:22 AM


 If you read the Federalist Papers (whose publication was deliberately meant to outline limitations on centralized gov't so as to get the states to ratify the Constitution), the Second Amendment was specifially aimed at the The People retaining the ability to organize and resist/take down any attempt at tyranical gov't.



It was not about hunting, self defense, target shooting or collecting -- as the Nancy Pelosi's of the world would like to make you believe -- it was about the power to violently revolt against unjust rule.



That is terrifying to the Power Brokers of today, and they desperately want to downplay any aspect of that capability.

: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: riflejunkie December 27, 2008, 03:07:20 AM
Consider the fact that civilians who were drawn into the revolution bringing their own guns had rifles while the military weapon was a smooth bore musket.  So in this sense the British were outgunned.  It was the intent of the 2nd amendment that civilians would have access to EVERY weapon the military would have.  I remember reading a quote from one of the framers of the constitution to that effect but can't remember which one.
The founders and framers drew up the constitution based on 2 primary things that aren't very different from one another, experience and history.  They opposed being less than full citizens while being taxed and their recent European history also showed them that religion as part of government was a source of tyranny, hence separation of church and state.  The primary minds behind the constitution were deists and Unitarians, not christians and still felt the sting of religious oppression.  None of the things in the constitution just materialized out of thin air.

: RE: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: riflejunkie December 27, 2008, 03:23:25 AM
You are absolutely right!  It was intended that civilians have at their disposal every instrument of war in order to resist tyranny.  

MEHavey - 12/27/2008  11:02 AM



 If you read the Federalist Papers (whose publication was deliberately meant to outline limitations on centralized gov't, and gto et the states to ratify the Constitution), the Second Amendment was specifially aimed at the The People retaining the ability to organize and resist/take down any attempt at tyranical gov't.



It was not about hunting, self defense, target shooting or collecting -- as the Nancy Pelosi's of the world would like to make you believe -- it was about the power to violently revolt against unjust rule.



That is terrifying to the Power Brokers of today, and they desparately want to downplay any aspect of that capability.

: RE: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Tony Mullinax February 15, 2009, 06:48:01 AM
Since the Riflejunkie come from the same train of thought, it's the right of the people to protect themselves for a tyranny.
: RE: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Gene_SC February 15, 2009, 08:20:53 AM
I am sure glad you stepped up to the plate on this one Charlotte.. YES GUN CONTROLE IS AN INFRINGEMENT ON OUR FREEDOM TO BARE ARMS. If we do not fight back we will be just like the Brit' and Aussies.....Our Government is like Cancer, you give it an inch and it will take all your rights away.
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Hermie February 15, 2009, 09:58:42 AM
Republicans need to follow that as well... Give them an inch to invade personal lives by, say, overturning Roe V. Wade, they'll go to extremes and invade your bedrooms and private lives further.
: RE: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: riflejunkie February 15, 2009, 10:21:18 AM
Well, I'm just going to pound this one into the ground.  "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is just a fancy way of saying there will not be a restriction on owning/posessing guns.  How do you create any kind of restriction without violating the 2nd amendment? You can't.  We should have a class action lawsuit to repeal all gun laws as a violation of our 2nd Amendment.  We are supposed to have guns to scare the hell out of politicians and the IRS.
Definition: Infringed
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Hermie March 02, 2009, 04:03:22 PM
What needs to be done is stricter penalties and more investigation on illegal distribution of guns. Keep them out of criminal hands and in the hands of the honest public.
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Big_Bill March 04, 2009, 07:06:02 AM


Yes Michael,



We need a War on illegal firearms, just like the one We have on Drugs !



I'm sure that this will stop all illegal firearms from entering the country, just as Prohibition Stopped the use of Alcohol in the United States.



What we need to do is stop dealing with the criminals, and putting them away for a long,long time !



But you know,,,,It's much easier to create laws that will make honest citizens criminals, because we are so much easier to catch !



If you really want to keep GunsOUT of Criminals Hands, you would need to cut off their hands.



Bill

: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Hermie March 04, 2009, 10:10:06 AM
I guess you missed my point...

I know that most gun crimes are done with illegally obtained weapons. So, logically, to avoid taking rights from the honest public, find these illegal distributors and lock them up.

I'm all for the death penalty as well, provided there is concrete evidence, without a shadow of a doubt. Don't need people getting zapped then later proved innocent.
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Big_Bill March 04, 2009, 12:52:15 PM


What you apparently missed Michael,



Is that criminals always find ways to surcomvent the law. Just as Drug Dealers, Bootleggers, Prohibitionists, cigarette smugglers, smugglers, and arms dealers all around, do so well, and on a daily basis!



Criminals ARE Criminals because they do not abide by any Laws at all, Only Their OWN Laws !



Apprehend one and several will quickly take their place.

: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: gunsup0331 March 04, 2009, 03:57:01 PM
Hermie - 2/15/2009 2:58 PM Republicans need to follow that as well... Give them an inch to invade personal lives by, say, overturning Roe V. Wade, they'll go to extremes and invade your bedrooms and private lives further.
If you think that the goal of Republicans(more so than Dems) is to invade your private life you are wrong. "patriot act" was ridiculous, ill give ya that. 99.9% of abortions are pure unadulterated murder. You think its ok? See ya in hell. Ill probably be there too but not for supporting the murder of God's children. The "paranoia" you refer to is actually well grounded fear of government control. You spout things like "well, i think they should "round up illegal distribution of firearms"" Thats what the ATF was supposed to do but they would much rather kill innocents and harass citizens. (google) To say the founding fathers wrote the Constitution specifically for their time in history without thinking into the future is ignorant and a slap in the face to those who designed and those who now protect your freedoms. "obama's not comin after our guns.." jesus kid, what kool aide party did you stumble out of?
: Re: I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)
: Hermie March 07, 2009, 05:29:57 PM
Not the Paranoia pariy, that's for sure.

I never said the goal of Republicans was to invade your private lives, but they regularly attempt to. The fact that they claim to be for small government and yet are for the greatest ammount of personal privacy violation than any other party labels them as hypocrites, and I refuse to support them.

If Republicans ACTUALLY STUCK TO SMALL GOVERNMENT AND STAYED OUT OF PEOPLE'S BEDROOMS, I might actually like them.