2nd Ammendment - SciForums.com

crazy151drinker

11-09-05, 04:30 PM

"However, the delusions of being able to own arms in case of a revolt is just ridiculous. Seriously, does anyone really think they are going to be able to take down the US government and army iwth a few hand guns? Get real..."

Who says the gun owner has to be part of the 'revolt'?? Do you think 1,000 cars would be burning each night in the US??? **** NO! People burning cars would be shot by gun owners! LOL

As far as citizens vs the Military, I would say "stalemate". Being that there are 200 Million+ guns out there...you couldnt exactly roll Tanks thru LA and carpet bomb New York. The Military's options would be quit limited. Not that any revolt could defeat the U.S. Military. But I tend to believe that we are as a whole a happy society, and while we might have problems, we are not going to go to that level.

Neildo

11-09-05, 04:33 PM

Oh damn, the San Fran handgun ban passed? Damned hippy democraps. Time to head back to the gun forums..

When are people gonna realize that laws don't get rid of anything, it only hinders LAW-ABIDING citizens. So law-abiding citizens no longer have guns, but the criminals and gang members continue to. Idiots. Good luck protecting yourselves.

You can't even use a baseball bat to defend yourself. Did you know that protecting yourself with a baseball bat falls under having a baton without a license and is considered a FELONY whereas someone having a concealed handgun without a permit on them is only a misdermeanor? Have fun trying to talk yourselves out of a criminal hurting you since that's the only thing you're capable of. Oh wait, next they'll want the 1st amendment gone too so you won't even be able to do that. :rolleyes:

- N

spuriousmonkey

11-09-05, 04:34 PM

typical liberal wussiness[ i AM a demacrate,and the gun issue is WHY we lose]. any one who likes the constitution is a redneck..

in florida we passed the right to shoot someone if they threaten you,violent crime has dropped 80%.and so far no one that i know of has had to shoot anyone.

funny how guns PREVENT violent crimes.not cause them.

if the hippies had brought guns instead of bongs,vietnam would have been over in a week,weed would be legal,and we would not be in iraq right now.thanks worthless hippies.

And somehow civilized countries have less violent crimes than the US with strict gun laws.

I wonder how you explain that.

Neildo

11-09-05, 04:58 PM

http://www.hardylaw.net/FailedExperiment.pdf

:)

- N

mars13

11-09-05, 06:14 PM

canada has more guns per capita then the u.s. but has almost no violent crime compared to the u.s.

there is not one shred of evidence that even romotly suggests that less guns=less crime.

an african country banned guns outright,now the gangs all use crossbows and midevil weaponry.

we have the second amendment to balance the governments authority over us,we are afraid of cops,and they are afraid of us.

i think everyone should be issued a gun at birth,and anyone who doesnt like guns can get body armour instead.

but i will remain a demacrate and try to change the entire mind set of ''guns are bad somehow,because bad people use guns'' or whatever rational the worthless queers and cowards use to justify their hatred for the constitution.

Baron Max

11-09-05, 06:22 PM

Criminals ARE criminals simply because they DON'T obey the laws .....and yet so many people think that passing a NEW law is going to make all of those criminals become nice guys ...instantly! And crime will simply stop! ...LOL!

The only people who'll obey that new law will be law-abiding citizens ...NOT the criminals. Geez, guys, is that really, seriously, so hard to understand?

Baron Max

Mystech

11-09-05, 06:33 PM

The second ammendment is about a well-organized militia (National Guard), not a bunch of redneck gun-nuts needing to fight the feds.

Yes, unfortunately It's not politically correct to mention this - and the rightiesclam that only the left use political correctness for their ends!

That being said, I'm not anti-gun. I quite like fire-arms, have done a bit of target shooting - don't actually own a gun, wouldn't get enough use out of it, and I'm not stupid enough to think that it's handy for self defense in an urban environment. I think that America's history and strong gun-culture would make it imposable to ever truly have a ban on civilian fire-arms, and quite like the war on drugs it would be a futile battle anyhow as they'd still be readily available via black-market channels.

That doesn't, however, mean that I approve of all this dick-extension "self protection" and "it's my right" Bullshit that the NRA drums up every single time there's a measure anywhere in the country dealing with gun control. The "Castle" law they passed in Florida, which essentially allows anyone to use lethal force against anyone so long as they say that they felt sufficiently threatened is an utter travesty and frankly counter to civilization itself. No one is made safer by making it easier and less risky to kill people anywhere. I also can't fathom what gets the NRA so upset about background checks - I guess that they feel we're all safer when we allow criminals and the mentally deranged easy access to any fire arm they like.

Neildo

11-09-05, 06:33 PM

Here's a funny post I found on calguns.net:

- N

--------------------

From CraigsList
http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/rnr/110053763.html

I hate San Francisco

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: pers-110053763@craigslist.org
Date: 2005-11-09, 12:14PM PST

I can't tell you how angry I am. I'm a 22 year old crack dealer and operate just off Market and 6th. I also do a bit of pimpin'. You say that's illegal??? I don't give a ****.

I always carry a lot of cash, usually 5 or 6 thousand dollars in my pocket. But I'm a cheap bastard, I admit it. If I want something I see in a store, I usually just ****in steal it. People don't **** with me, cause they know I'm packing. I just lift up my shirt a bit so they can get a glimps of it in my waistband. That works all the time. It's a nice stainless Ruger .357 mag. Small, but real easy to draw and packs a major ****in' punch... 5 punches in fact. And I'll deny it in court, but I've had to use it... it's gotten me out of trouble a few times.

But now I've got a problem. You see, I'm still gunna deal crack and women, but now I can't carry my Ruger. What the **** am I gunna do now that it's illegal to have a gun? Carry a freeking baseball bat? A lead pipe? I don't want to get into trouble by having a gun... I mean ****, it's illegal!!!! I don't want to break the gun law!!! Guess I'll just have to get a big ****in knife. 'Cause if I get popped by the cops while I'm dealing dope and pussy, I don't want to have a gun on me.

http://b.im.craigslist.org/LA/On/4IJ5jcT9lSrLQhhjODLcGipMyTdV.jpg

no -- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

Mystech

11-09-05, 06:54 PM

Baron Max

11-09-05, 07:01 PM

...Bullshit that the NRA drums up every single time there's a measure anywhere in the country dealing with gun control.
No one is made safer by making it easier and less risky to kill people anywhere.

Check out the crime stats for Florida ...after both '88 and the recent "Castle Doctrine" law ...you might change your mind about being safer.

The major crime stats dropped in Texas also when the "right to carry" passed. Check out some of the other states with 'right to carry' laws, too. So don't just give us your opinion, check the statistics and you'll be more educated about guns and crime.

Baron Max

Baron Max

11-09-05, 07:03 PM

...LOL! Mystech, your last post is so funny that I can't actually believe that YOU typed it up and posted it! ...LOL!

Baron Max

Mystech

11-09-05, 07:09 PM

How did I know that I could count on you to get a kick out of suggesting violence against homosexuals? Glad I could stimulate your redneck glands and get those juices flowing, Baron. Now go curl up with a banjo, and some moonshine or whatever it is you people do.

Baron Max

11-09-05, 07:14 PM

Glad I could stimulate your redneck glands and get those juices flowing, Baron. Now go curl up with a banjo, and some moonshine or whatever it is you people do.

How did you know that I play the banjo? ...don't drink no moonshine, tho'. In my early years I drank so much of it that it fucked up my brain cells!!! :)

Baron Max

Mystech

11-09-05, 07:22 PM

How did you know that I play the banjo?

Because you've got two many missing teeth to be any good with a harmonica.

Baron Max

11-09-05, 07:26 PM

Because you've got two many missing teeth to be any good with a harmonica.

Oh, shit! How'd ya' know about my missing teeth????????? :)

Damn, I'm gonna' start listenin' to you ....you know every-fuckin'-thing, don't ya'? :)

Baron Max

mars13

11-09-05, 07:39 PM

the bmg is one awsome rifle. anyone that doesnt know what it is need to do a search.
also if you dont like huge guns,look up the blackwidow revolver by north american arms,its the smallest revolver on the market,hell, my mom hates guns but she likes the black widow!!!!

i take ALL of my rights very seriously,my gun just protects my other rights as an american,thats what they are for.

im considering joining the constitution party because the dumbacrats are a bunch of losers,and the necropublicans are phycotic corprates.

neither party has the nations best intrest at heart.

thomas jefferson said if you want TRUE democracy you need to have a revolution every 20 years.

well he was right.

the bill of rights forever,live free or die.

Neildo

11-09-05, 07:54 PM

Neildo, I see your straw-man and raise you one post full of hyperbole.

Say, what about the bearing arms part of the 2nd amendment? Why don't the gun-nuts get all fuming over that one? I mean, say I'm in Nevada - a rather gun-friendly state, I'm allowed to own pretty much any old gun I like, and by old gun I mean Browning M2 .50 cal machine gun, but if I mount that sucker on top of my hummer you KNOW I’m gonna' get pulled over, and my vehicle's gonna' be impounded - just for bearing the arm. To make things worse, I can't just walk around waving a hand gun around, just brandishing a weapon is a crime in most places! Friggiln' liberal pussies ruin all the fun of owning a gun - if I can't put on my "fag patrol" t-shirt and sling a rifle over my shoulder and march around outside of gay-bars, then what the hell is the point of owning a gun anyway?

Um, your argument may have worked better if instead of taking some drastic thing such as putting a .50 cal on a truck, you would have argued people not being allowed to own fully automatic weapons. Many assault rifles people own are fully automatic for miltitarized use but are tweaked to only be semi-automatic (can only fire one shot per trigger pull, which, by the way, many liberals tend to think semi-automatic means FULLY automatic). I'm surprised you didn't just use some silly argument of why citizens can't own nuclear missles.

But hey, as for your argument, it may be legal to mount a .50 cal onto one's vehicle in other states outside of Kalifornia, if you have the proper permit just as one can own a fully automatic weapon with a class III license (hard as hell to get, usually only firearms dealers have one). People can already own helicopters, tanks, airplanes, and all sorts of older military weaponry, they just need the proper permit. You can even drive tanks on highways! Heck, our own governor, Mr. Swartzenegger owns a couple German tanks that he used to drive while he was in the German military before moving to the United States.

I don't know about your "fag patrol" t-shirt, but they may be legal. I don't know why it wouldn't be. As for not being able to brandish a gun, that's a safety law. It doesn't restrict your freedom of being able to own a gun or defend yourself though. Go ahead and brandish your gun if you want, but you'll have the high risk of being shot having someone think you were threatening or holding someone up. I'd rather a law like that not be around because then we'd get rid of more idiots. Just like for those 59% that voted on the banning of handguns in San Franciso, I hope THEY become the victims of crime so their kind will no longer be around to procreate. Too bad the other half that voted will suffer for their ignorance.

But you see, that's the complete difference between a bullshit law in San Franciso vs a law about your .50 cal or fully automatic weapon restrictions. We CAN do all of the above, we just need the proper permit to be allowed to do so. San Franciso is banning COMPLETE ownership of handguns, period, even if you own a business you cannot defend yourself with one. Only law enforcement and security personnel are allowed to own them. I don't know how those with current concealed weapons permits are affected, but I'd assume they won't be able to use them either. Did you know that even before this ban in San Francisco, they were so restrictive that in their whole county, only TEN civilians were issued a concealed weapons permit? And I know one of them only because he's a bodyguard for a multi-millionaire technology buff in Silicon Valley. In most other counties, you'll have at least 500+ people that are issued those permits.

- N

P.S. I like you Mysech. I'm actually Liberal (but politically independent), but in the Thomas Jeffersonian way where I believe 100% in our Bill of Rights, Constitution, etc. I just hate the hippie liberals as they're the ones that try to restrict our freedoms. I'm not an ignorant type to pass laws like these that restrict our freedoms and our right to defend ourselves. They think criminals are gonna hand in their guns and the police will always be around to protect us. Yeah friggin right. Those types should be deported to New Orleans.

mars13

11-09-05, 08:00 PM

a permit here is $150 and a couple hour class. belive me,never start shit with strangers in florida,they WILL shoot you.

from my cold dead hands.

James R

11-09-05, 09:41 PM

funny how guns PREVENT violent crimes.not cause them.

Guns don't cause crime or prevent it. What they do is make the results of crime worse than what they would have been without the guns.

mars13

11-09-05, 09:42 PM

so there was no violent crime before guns? not one war ? no one was ever seriously injured before guns?

funny how history tells a completly diffrent story.

one_raven

11-09-05, 09:59 PM

No offense, but that is the stupidest thing you have ever written here. Please do a little research about the second amendment so that in the future you don't come across as being so incredibly ignorant. Thank you.
Have you ever actually read the Constitution?
Here is Amendment II, in its entirety, in case you have never seen it...

Amendment II

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.

So, yes, jackass, it was very specifically about organized militia.
A "well regulated militia" is spells out pretty clearly the intent of the second amendment.
While I am not against individuals owning certain guns, using the Second Amendment to back your case is just plain bullshit, and people who try and use it to justify individuals owning assault rifles are either full of shit or stupid.

James R

11-09-05, 10:04 PM

so there was no violent crime before guns? not one war ? no one was ever seriously injured before guns?

Who is this response directed at? I can't see anybody making that claim.

Mogul

11-09-05, 10:42 PM

Guns don't cause crime or prevent it. What they do is make the results of crime worse than what they would have been without the guns.

You couldn't be more wrong. In the right hands guns can and do prevent violent crimes, many more each year than most people think (but those statistics are never spoken of). What makes crimes worse is when the criminals have guns and the honest citizens don't. BTW, how do you turn honest citizens into criminals? Answer: make more bad laws.
And... as I have understood it, the main intent of the founding fathers by the Second Amendment (which I think was worded poorly) was for the people to defend themselves from the possibility of a tyranical government. Since the National Guard is commanded by the Governor, well that's not following their intent, is it? But then again, in those days the standing malitia was a different animal.

one_raven

11-09-05, 10:52 PM

I agree that it was the intention of the Second Amendment to offer protection from a tyrranical government by giving the right to the people to form organized militia.

One person, however, is not an organized militia.
Plus, as you eluded to, times DO change.

Neildo

11-09-05, 11:12 PM

Times never change. It's all the same. History always repeats itself. Things only change cosmetically. It's like a crack whore that puts make-up on to make herself look better, but she's still a crack whore when it all comes down to it.

Have faith in your government and your surrounding criminals. They won't do you no harm. The police will always be here to protect you. Times change! :rolleyes:

- N

one_raven

11-09-05, 11:18 PM

Right.

So the situation we are in now is the same as it was in the 18th century?
It was awfully silly of the founding father to have built this government system as one that evolves, then.
They should have set it in cement, because nothing ever changes, right.

History DOES tend to repeat itself and man may never change, but our surroundings constantly do. The reality of governing a country (especially one as physically large, environmentally different and socially diverse as this one) must face that with teh most somber and serious respect.

mars13

11-09-05, 11:38 PM

you did not post the second amendment in its entirity.

there is a semi colon between ''free state'' and ''the right of the people''.

these are two DIFFRENT parts of the second amendment.

one says we should have a well orginized group of dedicated protectors[militia] AND citizens should have the right to HAVE WEAPONS.

and still,i have yet to see one scrap of sientific evidence to support
guns causing more crime.in fact every single piece of imperical eveidence suggects that guns PREVENT more crime then any other form of protection evr devised by humans.

violent crime in america is at an all time low,but guns have gotten more powerful,how?

try reasoning with an unarmed gun hater and they will stutter and gasp for a comeback to SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!!!!

show me ONE,just one study that even remotly suggest more guns=more crime and i will literly eat my hat.

one_raven

11-09-05, 11:52 PM

you did not post the second amendment in its entirity.

there is a semi colon between ''free state'' and ''the right of the people''.

these are two DIFFRENT parts of the second amendment.

one says we should have a well orginized group of dedicated protectors[militia] AND citizens should have the right to HAVE WEAPONS.

Let's see...
Accoding to...
Cornell Law School (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii)
FindLaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendments.html)
The University of Oklahoma Law School (http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/constitution/)
The US House of Representatives (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html)
AND
The National Archives (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
...you are mistaken.

Besides, even if it WAS a semicolon, which it is obviously not, it would STILL not mean what you are claiming.
Please learn the proper use of semicolons as punctuation.

mars13

11-10-05, 01:55 AM

either way ill shoot ya if you take my guns!!!!!!!!!!WWWWWWWoooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

one_raven

11-10-05, 02:53 AM

Thank you.
I prefer an honest approach.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to own guns.
There is everything wrong with trying to use a false interpretation of the constitution to try and justify that.
Make a real case, rather than manipulate facts.

Mogul

11-10-05, 08:53 AM

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

Yea, I know this is a pro-gun group, but they list their sources too.

"Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5 "

These sources also point out that guns were used much more often (80 times more often) to prevent a crime than to commit one...

These figures would have to be about as conservative (meaning liberal?) as you could get. Estimates go as high as 2.5 million. But I just did a quick search. :cool:

About the Second Amendment, I've always wondered... was grammar that different at that time? Is not the wording poor grammar?

Mogul

11-10-05, 09:09 AM

jayleew

11-10-05, 09:40 AM

Guns don't cause crime or prevent it. What they do is make the results of crime worse than what they would have been without the guns.

That is a logical assumption, but not evidence. Allegedly, in Florida their violent crime has dropped 80% Can anyone confirm this?

chuck u farley

11-10-05, 12:11 PM

"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. "

Those that interpret this as stating that the Militia has the right to keep and bear arms are connecting 'well regulated Militia' with 'right to keep and bear arms', correct? How can you drop 'the right of the people' out of it? 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms' is one statement of a right... is that the right given to the Militia? Doesn't sound correct to me.

BTW, as I understand it, at that time every able bodied man of age was part of the militia. Your gun you kept and cared for at your house. The public could not and still can not defend itself from a tyranical government if it were otherwise.

Peace

Well stated, Mogul. But please take it easy on these guys. You see, I think Spidegoat and Raven are probably eighth graders or something, and they really haven't learned much yet. They obviously have never heard of Richard Henry Lee or any of the other movers and shakers who contributed to fashioning the second amendment. If they had even a little familiarity with the history, they would not be making such asinine statements.

mars13

11-10-05, 12:39 PM

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/violent/index.asp

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/violent/fa_index.asp

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#serious

but since the law is relitivly new,they july2005-december 2005 stats are not finished yet.

trust me,violent crime has dropped to almost nothing.

also,the second amendment states that a well regulated militia AND the peoples right to bear arms,shall not be infringed.it means that public militias,and the citizens right to carry a weapon shall not be infringed upon.

spidergoat

11-10-05, 12:53 PM

Handguns are almost useless for the purposes of the 2nd ammendment. I have nothing against owning a rifle, I think everyone should be required to serve some time in the military, and be trained in shooting. Remember, in the early days of the US, there was no standing army. Today, we have a National Guard, which is a well regulated militia. The proliferation of handguns is a big problem in the US, just compare the rates of homicide between the UK and the US. It's 6.3% US .vs 1.35% in the UK.

Basically, the gun industry has sold everyone a lie.

spuriousmonkey

11-10-05, 01:25 PM

Amendment II

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.

Ok. This is the first time I have seen this amendment. Obviously it doesn't specifically state that the people should be allowed to have firearms, although often arms is referred to as firearms. Arms means technically weapons.

It doesn't say the right to keep ALL POSSIBLE ARMS. Otherwise it would be ok to have a tank, a nuke, biological weapons in your backgarden. According to this logic you don't necessarily have the right to own firearms, guns, pistols, semi-automatic guns.

I think it would be perfectly legal to restrict the people's arms to knives, spears, baseball bats, bare fists etc.

Moreover and more importantly, It is obvious from this amentment that you should only be allowed to have arms if you are part of a well regulated militia. WELL REGULATED MILITIA!!!

Why doesn't anyone ever mention this? How many of you gun owners are member of a well regulated militia???

About zero?

thought so.

chuck u farley

11-10-05, 01:37 PM

spidergoat

11-10-05, 01:57 PM

The National Guard is the people, too. I really wish you would stop with the condescending attitude, chuck u farley, there is a wide variety of valid opinions on the subject of gun ownership.

Baron Max

11-10-05, 02:25 PM

...., there is a wide variety of valid opinions on the subject of gun ownership.

Well, I sure don't see how there can be!! It's written right there in black n' white, plain as the nose on ye're face! One of our most sacred and revered documents of government! How can you argue with that part and not argue with all of it???

And one can't possibly argue much about the decrease in crime since the 'permit to carry' law was passed in Florida in '88 (I think it was '88). And that same reduced violent crime rate is true in other 'carry' states. How can you argue with it?

Baron Max

spuriousmonkey

11-10-05, 02:32 PM

Spurious, how long are you going to continue to go through life without ever learning or understanding anything? Please do a little bit of homework. The militia are the people for crying out loud. If you would do just a little bit of research you would understand that.

Here, I'll help you out a little because I like you and I hate to see you make such a fool of yourself. Read this please:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

A well regulated militia is not the same as THE people.

People is people. Unless they are well regulated and bear arms they are not a well regulated militia. That is what it says. Obviously people have their own interpretations of what is what. By according to the letter of the amendment people DO NOT have the right to bear arms. A well regulated militia has the right. WELL REGULATED it says. How should I interpret WELL REGULATED as being the same as PEOPLE?

Because someone says so?

spidergoat

11-10-05, 02:39 PM

There are all kinds of guns you can't own, a howitzer, for instance, and full auto weapons (which are the preferred kind for war), so it is legal to regulate gun ownership in some ways. This is what I mean by a diversity of valid opinions. Hunting weapons have never been in jeopardy.

The insurgency in Iraq would be ineffective if all they had were rifles, how do people expect to fight the federal government without rocket launchers and bombs?

spuriousmonkey

11-10-05, 02:41 PM

from your own link

The word "militia" is a Latin abstract noun, meaning "military service", not an "armed group" (with the connotation of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term, meaning "army" or "soldiery" was "volgus militum". Since for the Romans "military service" included law enforcement and disaster response, it might be more meaningfully translated today as "defense service", associated with a "defense duty", which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise.

It doesn't really say militia means people now does it? I know I am a bit thick, but I am not blind.

spuriousmonkey

11-10-05, 02:44 PM

Baron Max

11-10-05, 02:56 PM

There are all kinds of guns you can't own, a howitzer, for instance, and full auto weapons (which are the preferred kind for war), so it is legal to regulate gun ownership in some ways. This is what I mean by a diversity of valid opinions.

No, I think ye're making the mistake of calling it "legal" just because there weren't many people who cared to own howitzers, etc, and so didn't complain. But that does NOT make regulating howitzers legal! It may be a law, but it just ain't been challenged in the Supreme Court yet, that's all!

...how do people expect to fight the federal government without rocket launchers and bombs?

I'm sure that once we start the revolution, we won't really be too worried about following all of the laws and rules, do you????

Baron Max

Baron Max

11-10-05, 02:59 PM

It doesn't really say militia means people now does it? I know I am a bit thick, but I am not blind.

No, I don't think ye're blind OR a bit thick ....but ye're just playing word games that have little or no relevance to the actual discussion. For one thing, you have no idea what the founding fathers meant when they used the word "militia". So arguing about symantics is pretty senseless.

Baron Max

chuck u farley

11-10-05, 03:06 PM

A well regulated militia is not the same as THE people.

People is people. Unless they are well regulated and bear arms they are not a well regulated militia. That is what it says. Obviously people have their own interpretations of what is what. By according to the letter of the amendment people DO NOT have the right to bear arms. A well regulated militia has the right. WELL REGULATED it says. How should I interpret WELL REGULATED as being the same as PEOPLE?

Because someone says so?
Hi Spurious:
What part of "all men capable of bearing arms" do you not understand.

Now, you do the same thing here as you do when you have a disagreement with someone on a biological topic. You have your mind made up ahead of time. You then refuse to acknowledge what is right in front of your face. You stick with your position even if it's clear that you are wrong. That kind of approach is what is hampering you in your efforts to become a competent research scientist.

Try approaching a topic with an open mind. Then, consider all of the evidence and accept the truth no matter where it leads. Please try that. Best of luck to you.

spuriousmonkey

11-10-05, 03:22 PM

Hi Spurious:
What part of "all men capable of bearing arms" do you not understand.

aha... I see now from wikipedia that there are different versions of the 2nd amendment. The one I saw didn't have your sentence in it. Hence you tirade seems a bit superfluous.

mars13

11-10-05, 03:34 PM

i wish people would learn to read.

the second amendment means militias AND the peoples right to bear arms[they clearly had/ment guns],shall not be infringed.

that mean the people have the right to own ,posses,and use guns.

and that a well regulated militia of the people is a right as well.

the amendment implies two very diffrent things as being civil rights.

one is personal gun ownerhsip,the other is the peoples right to assemble for protection with regulation.

its written in old english,but the meaning is abundantly clear .

they had guns in 1776,they called them ''arms'',and im sure they could invision a day where guns fired more then 3 rounds a minute and they still put that in the constitution.

the militia was supposed to be an orginized ,state[country] regulated group of civilian protectors . they had just fought a bloddy war for independence and they saw the need for a well organized standing army. that concept has been batsrdized since then,but the spirit remains. we do have a well regulated standing army composed of u.s. citizens.i think non u.s. contracters fighting in the military[haliburtons ''security contracters'']is a violation of the second amendment.but thats a supreme court matter to rule on.

also,gun laws do not in them selves,violate the second amendment,unless they restrict a law abiding citizens right to protect them selves from harm. banning hand guns[which they had in 1776]or the ability to posses/carry those arms is a violation of that right.thats not to say they cant/shouldnt regulate or license a firearm,but ALL citizens do have the right to posses or carry the weapon of there choosing for personal defence.

now should people be allowed to own a howitzer or cruise missle?of course,what ever weapons the militia has the citizens of the country should have access to as well.they had canons in 1776 so im sure they thought about canons being more powerful in the future when they wrote the constitution and im sure they considered the average citizen haveing accsess to those weapons,after all the militia IS made up of the people,but i dont think they intended to have a military that is seperate from the citizens,which leads us back to the batsardization of the second amendment.

chuck u farley

11-10-05, 03:36 PM

aha... I see now from wikipedia that there are different versions of the 2nd amendment. The one I saw didn't have your sentence in it. Hence you tirade seems a bit superfluous.

No tirade there buddy. That was part of a quote from Richard Henry Lee. Ever heard of him?

Ok fine. Now, if you have time, please look over these quotes. They are from certain individuals who were discussing the second amendment back about 1789 or so. Please look these over objectively and see if you can understand who the militia is, according to them. Thank you.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

spuriousmonkey

11-10-05, 03:38 PM

spuriousmonkey

11-10-05, 03:42 PM

No tirade there buddy. That was part of a quote from Richard Henry Lee. Ever heard of him?

Ok fine. Now, if you have time, please look over these quotes. They are from certain individuals who were discussing the second amendment back about 1789 or so. Please look these over objectively and see if you can understand who the militia is, according to them. Thank you.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html
To be really honest I think this whole controversy is bullshit. The amendment was written, what? two centuries ago. Your society has changed. Your government has changed. The world has changed. Britain is not coming back to take its colony back.

Maybe it is time to look at this thing objectively and stop interpreting an old document. Is it really something still from this era?

spidergoat

11-10-05, 03:43 PM

Also, it says arms, not guns. That leaves it to the Supreme Court or congress to determine what arms are.

Can I have my own nuclear weapon?

mars13

11-10-05, 03:45 PM

so when george washington called the troops to arms,he ment what?
sticks and rocks?
no they ment GUNS,they had them,they used them,and they stated citizens have the right to own them.

spuriousmonkey

11-10-05, 03:50 PM

You said learn how to read,. You didn't say know how other (specific) people interpreted what they read a long time ago.

It says 'arms'. It says 'bear'. None of these things technically means 'owning guns'.

Mogul

11-10-05, 03:57 PM

Question: Who would want to take your guns away from you, you being an honest, law abiding citizen?
Answer: Your enemy! Just ask the German Jews.

Peace

chuck u farley

11-10-05, 03:58 PM

Well, let's learn how to read then.

It says 'bear arms' and not own, possess arms.

bear (dictionary.com)
To hold up; support.

So I'm afraid if we would really follow the letter of the amendment it actually doesn't say you have the right to own a gun. You have the right to hold a gun.

You're not paying attention, Mr. Monkey.

Samuel Adams: "...keeping their own arms."

Madison: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Patrick Henry; "everyone who is able may have a gun."

Zacaria Johnson: "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons"

There are more. I don't know how you missed them. Next time, please take a few minutes to read the quotes before you answer. Thank you.

spidergoat

11-10-05, 03:59 PM

so when george washington called the troops to arms,he ment what?
sticks and rocks?
no they ment GUNS,they had them,they used them,and they stated citizens have the right to own them.
He meant a muzzleloading flintlock musket. I agree, you can have one.

mars13

11-10-05, 04:10 PM

ben franklin discovered electricty,he invented bifocals and a fo-i -net-ic form of spelling,do you honestly think they could not envision a time where guns shot more then 3 rounds per minute?they also had artiliary,bombs, canons,and rockets.

arms,in 1776 ment guns,thats a well documented fact.considering firearms means guns,the abreviated form of that would be arms.

chuck u farley

11-10-05, 04:14 PM

To be really honest I think this whole controversy is bullshit. The amendment was written, what? two centuries ago. Your society has changed. Your government has changed. The world has changed. Britain is not coming back to take its colony back.

Maybe it is time to look at this thing objectively and stop interpreting an old document. Is it really something still from this era?

There is hope for you after all Mr. Monkey. You are finally thinking.

If the government wants to restrict the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, it should try to get the amendment changed.

mars13

11-10-05, 04:22 PM

amendments shouls only be passed with a national vote,and should only pass if more then 75% approve,51% to 49% just leaves too many people feeling screwed over by the system.but thats the problem with democracy,a group of people is ALWAYS screwed over.

spidergoat

11-10-05, 04:25 PM

The government already restricts citizens from bearing any kind of gun they want. For instance, you can't own one if you are a felon. You can't carry a handgun without a permit. You can't have a full auto rifle or pistol without a permit. You can't have a truck mounted gun, cannon, mortar, grenade launcher, or missile launcher. There are certain types of ammo you can't use. You can't have chemical or biological weapons. So, there are already precedents for restricting weapon ownership.

spuriousmonkey

11-10-05, 04:29 PM

You're not paying attention, Mr. Monkey.

Samuel Adams: "...keeping their own arms."

Madison: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Patrick Henry; "everyone who is able may have a gun."

Zacaria Johnson: "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons"

There are more. I don't know how you missed them. Next time, please take a few minutes to read the quotes before you answer. Thank you.

I am paying attention. I can't remember reading these people's opinions in the actual amendment.

spuriousmonkey

11-10-05, 04:30 PM

For instance, you can't own one if you are a felon.

So a fellon is not part of the people?

chuck u farley

11-10-05, 04:30 PM

He meant a muzzleloading flintlock musket. I agree, you can have one.

Please don't be so patronizing Spidergoat.

chuck u farley

11-10-05, 04:33 PM

I am paying attention. I can't remember reading these people's opinions in the actual amendment.

Well, Mr. Monkey, that's why you were so mistaken about the second amendment. You had not read any of the background behind it. I'm happy that you have finally seen the light.

spuriousmonkey

11-10-05, 04:43 PM

Indeed. And also realized that the background has not stayed in what you would call 'stasis'. Indeed a lot has changed.

I also read that there are at least 3 interpretations of this amendment. Not all of these interpretations conclude that individuals have the right to own and bear guns. These other interpretations clearly see this amendment based on the existence of militia...you know, the well regulated ones.

Shoot me if I am wrong in this.

wesmorris

11-10-05, 04:58 PM

The second ammendment is about a well-organized militia (National Guard), not a bunch of redneck gun-nuts needing to fight the feds.

LOL. Who do you think the militia is?

What do you think the brits thought of washington and crew?

I don't own a gun, but I think guns are good in general on the basis of a mini-MAD. It's less likely someone will try to overtake you with a gun if they think you might have a gun.

The problem is that only law-abiding citizens will turn in their guns. Criminals... uhm... they're criminals, now they'll have guns and law-abiders won't. That seems unwise.

mars13

11-10-05, 05:01 PM

regulating weapons and restricting weapons are two very diffrent things.

felons have paid there debt to society after the finish their punishment,whether its jail or probation or whatever.

restricting freedoms becasue of past misdeeds is a stupid and dangerous thing to do.

i wish we had a supreme court that understoud the constitution,but 99% of americans have never even read a book,let alone can interprut the constitution.

if we had any form of education we might not have this problem,or if people would not stand for their rights being removed without so much as a whisper of discontent,this might still be america.

but until the people give a shit enough to actual fight for their rights they will not have them and they do not deserve them.

spuriousmonkey

11-10-05, 05:13 PM

The government could label any category of people unfit to carry a gun and where would your militia be then?

If you look at wikipedia then it states that the original version of the 2nd was:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

They took out 'no person religiously scrupulous' because the government could declare some people religiously scrupulous at will.

If we now return back to the example of 'felon' then we have ended up in the same street. The government could technically lable anyone a fellon (patriot act anyone?). It would actually be quite normal tyo quench a rebellion by calling the 'freedom fighters', or 'militia' criminals and terrorists and so deny them the right to bear arms.

So please be consistent people.

mars13

11-10-05, 05:28 PM

they wrote half a dozen versions of the constitution,the only one that counts is the one they signed.

and until the people care enough about there civil liberties to actualy fight for them,they dont desrve them.look at the black people in the 60s,they didnt have any rights until they started killing the people who had taken their rights as human beings.

i never comprimise my rights for anyone at any time,live free or die is not a quaint slogan,its a way of life,if every human on earth lived up to that standard,all peoples of earth would be free.but people would rather trade their rights for shitty tv and suvs and personal comfort,rather then actualy fight for something that would matter.

Mystech

11-10-05, 05:50 PM

But hey, as for your argument, it may be legal to mount a .50 cal onto one's vehicle in other states outside of Kalifornia, if you have the proper permit just as one can own a fully automatic weapon with a class III license

Wrong-o. There's no such thing as a class III weapon or a class III licence - it doesn't exist - commonly believed myth. The NFA of 1934 regulates things like rifles and shotguns with barrels shorter than 10 inches or which are capable of fully automatic fire to be regulated federaly (by BATF) by the issuance of tax stamps for the transfer of ownership of such weapons. There's no weapons classing system in the act, and certainly no "class III" (though you might be able to accurately refer to them as "section 2 weapons"). Also, there's no fedearly required permit to obtain a tax stamp for the transfer of ownership of one of these weapons.

Here's a helpfull link: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_E_20_53.html

As for not being able to brandish a gun, that's a safety law. It doesn't restrict your freedom of being able to own a gun or defend yourself though.

Well I certainly don't see how self defence factors into it. The constiution doesn't say anything about self defence, only the defence of the state. That aside, you'll note that the second amendment also says to "keep and bear arms" [emphasis mine, though the framers would have done well to do it themselves considering how often this clause is overlooked). The constiution isn't just securing the right to own a weapon - to keep it in a glass case and maybe take it out when no one can see it - it gives you the right to BEAR (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bear) that arm. In other words all these silly laws about not being able to walk around openly carying or shouldering a weapon are unconstiutional, there's no reason that I shouldn't be able to wave my .44 around all I like. I like all of my freedoms as well, but not even the NRA seems willing to stand up for this one!

Mystech

11-10-05, 05:54 PM

the main intent of the founding fathers by the Second Amendment (which I think was worded poorly) was for the people to defend themselves from the possibility of a tyranical government.

Really now? that's a very interesting interpretation considering. Popular with gun-nuts though it may be, however, it's not reflected at all in the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is pretty clear that it's sitting there to help protect the state - not individuals. It makes a lot of sense in the context of the time in which it was written - militias were pretty well all we had to fight the British and there was no real formal standing Army to speak of (though Militias were also much more militaristic and organized than the fraternities of fat beer drinking rednecks to which we apply the name today).

mars13

11-10-05, 05:54 PM

thats a very good point,keep AND bear arms does mean you can carry it concealed or out in the open. i bet a gun on your hip will reduce violent crime more then just knowing someone COULD have a concealed weapon.

we should make this america again.

Mystech

11-10-05, 06:05 PM

And one can't possibly argue much about the decrease in crime since the 'permit to carry' law was passed in Florida in '88 (I think it was '88). And that same reduced violent crime rate is true in other 'carry' states. How can you argue with it?

Violent crime rates have been dropping quite steadily from 1970s levels through the 80s and 90s, do you have a resource to any study which links this to laxer measures in gun control? I could say that the radical crime reductions in the 90s were due to the '94 assault weapons ban, but it doesn't make it so.

Also you and some of the other posters here keep citing an 80% reduction in violent crime since the passing of that "stand your ground" law in Florida (which was only a few months ago, wasn't it?) who's numbers are you citing here? Let's see some sources.

Mystech

11-10-05, 06:07 PM

There are all kinds of guns you can't own, a howitzer, for instance, and full auto weapons (which are the preferred kind for war),

Who can't own fully automatic weapons? There's no ban on 'em in the US - they're federally regulated through taxation, not illegal.

Mystech

11-10-05, 06:10 PM

Hi Spurious:
What part of "all men capable of bearing arms" do you not understand.

Hmm well for my part I have a problem with you stating the phrase as it if it means something. I can pull any definition out of my ass as well, but it doesn't mean it has any bearing on this discussion. Tell me, how does "any man capable of bearing arms" mesh with "Well regulated"?

spidergoat

11-10-05, 06:11 PM

Then why the pigs hassle me for my little Mac 11, Mystech?

Baron Max

11-10-05, 07:21 PM

snake river rufus

11-10-05, 07:25 PM

Why are some cities like San Francisco adopting city laws that infringe on the constitutional right to bear arms? How is it possible for a city ban of firearms to be passed which conflicts with the US Constitution? Apprently, they have to turn in their guns in April. I heard that this was one of the first things Stalin and Hitler did to control the populace from uprising. Is that correct? Does this sound like good legislation to you? Why did our fore fathers even make that stupid ammendment anyway? :rolleyes:
1 Some people are just hooplaphobes and want to ban everything that they don't like
2 It is not constitional and will be struck down
3 Actually it was Lenin and Hitler but that is true

mars13

11-10-05, 07:43 PM

hooplaphobes? you mean useless trenders,they just do whatever the tv/media tells them to do,or whatever is ''popular'' at the moment.thats why suvs are everywhere,its not becasue they are superior to cars,or safer,or handle better ,or get better milage,its becasue there are WAY too many stupid people who are incapable of forming their own opnions.

spuriousmonkey

11-10-05, 08:38 PM

mars13

11-10-05, 09:55 PM

its was created to protect all the other rights we should have.

if people would shoot retards when they try and take away your rights,people would eventualy stop trying to take them away.

Mystech

11-10-05, 10:04 PM

Mystech, I'm curious ....what else will you permit the goverment to take from us? I mean, if you're okay with them taking our guns, what will you say when they want to take something else ...citing the taking of guns as a precedent?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm in favor of the government taking away anyone's guns. I think you're trying too hard to read things into my posts.

Mystech

11-10-05, 10:07 PM

if people would shoot retards when they try and take away your rights,people would eventualy stop trying to take them away.

To put things in a slightly weirder perspective, we'd have an awful lot of gays shooting people if this were the case. We'd also have a lot of black people shooting people, but I don't think anyone would find that idea to be terribly shocking.

mars13

11-10-05, 10:45 PM

it worked for the blacks in the 60s. once they got violent about their civil rights being reppressed and white people started dying because of it,majicly they became equal citizens and the laws were changed.

if every one who wanted weed legal would go outside in the street on 4/20/2006 at 4:20 with a blunt and a gun and shot anyone who tried to stop them,weed would be legal the next day.along with our right to bear arms.

violence forces people to pay attention.

Neildo

11-10-05, 11:28 PM

Wrong-o. There's no such thing as a class III weapon or a class III licence - it doesn't exist - commonly believed myth. The NFA of 1934 regulates things like rifles and shotguns with barrels shorter than 10 inches or which are capable of fully automatic fire to be regulated federaly (by BATF) by the issuance of tax stamps for the transfer of ownership of such weapons. There's no weapons classing system in the act, and certainly no "class III" (though you might be able to accurately refer to them as "section 2 weapons"). Also, there's no fedearly required permit to obtain a tax stamp for the transfer of ownership of one of these weapons.

Yes, there is. You need a class III license to sell or transfer a fully automatic weapon. How else are you going to acquire one? True, there's no "federal" law (although state law is completely different) requiring you to have one to OWN a fully automatic weapon, but as I said, it's hard as hell getting one. Just like with trying to get a concealed weapon permit, you have to get approval from local law enforcement and ATF and you better have a good reason. For those that think getting a concealed weapons permit is hard, heh, have fun trying to own a fully automatic weapon. Just paying taxes on it doesn't mean you're gonna automatically be able to have one. And not to mention, a fully automatic weapon is going to cost 10x the amount as the same semi-auto one. And this is all if the state you live in allows fully automatic weapons.

Unfortunately in Kalifornia, you can't unless you're in the military, law enforcement, or as I said earlier, a firearms dealer with a class III license. Heck, there's tons of semi-automatic weapons you can't even own, and they're all mainly based on how they look, not operate, heh. I won't even get into the limited "evil" features aspect. More ignorant laws and reasoning right there.

Who can't own fully automatic weapons? There's no ban on 'em in the US - they're federally regulated through taxation, not illegal.

Not ONLY taxation. As I said, you have to be approved by local law enforcement and the ATF on top of paying for all the forms to get it. It can cost quite a few hundred dollars just to fill out forms, and that in no way guarantees you'll get approved.

Quit doing the liberal Brady trick of wording things to make it sound as if fully automatic weapons are easy to acquire and that our streets will be flooded with them.

- N

madanthonywayne

11-10-05, 11:56 PM

The second ammendment is about a well-organized militia (National Guard), not a bunch of redneck gun-nuts needing to fight the feds.
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
The militia is the people, not the army or the national guard.

mars13

11-11-05, 12:00 AM

you can still shoot people with a semi auto weapon,full auto just means youll miss 29 times out of 30 and be out of ammo after 3 seconds.
semi auto is the prefered form of shooting something,its more accurate,conserves ammo,and its cheap and legal.

or you can just use an electric cam over the trigger to pull it very fast and it will apear to be full auto while still being legal,

madanthonywayne

11-11-05, 12:01 AM

.thats why suvs are everywhere,its not becasue they are superior to cars,or safer,or handle better ,or get better milage,its becasue there are WAY too many stupid people who are incapable of forming their own opnions.
I have a wife, four kids, and a nanny. No vehicle but an SUV has enough room for us all except maybe a conversion ban, but the SUV is a lot nicer. Also, it pisses off liberals.

Muhlenberg

11-11-05, 12:20 AM

I'm keeping my SUV for the day John Kerry gives up his Gulf Stream V and rides by on a bicycle.

Mystech

11-11-05, 12:47 AM

it worked for the blacks in the 60s. once they got violent about their civil rights being reppressed and white people started dying because of it,majicly they became equal citizens and the laws were changed.

Yes, certainly it is because of the fact that some blacks got angry and shot people that they were granted their equal rights - truly that is the most relevant and meaningful message of the civil rights movement. Revisionist history is fun!

You've given me an idea for a film about the civil rights movement - I'll fly in the face of all those liberal wack-jobs and make a dramatized historical piece which leaves in the parts where Rosa Parks bombed that damned bus, and MLK and his crowd did drivebys through Washington. It’s important that our children know the truth!

mars13

11-11-05, 12:59 AM

me liberal?no im RESONABLE.i dont follow anyone blindly.

and i dont care if you actualy use your suv.i have an astro van[to pull my boat] and the view is sweet,those tiny hybrids[which pollute more then v8s!]look like ants from my captain chair.

but if you dont need a v8 2.5 ton suv you shouldnt be driving it.it IS my/everyones air too,and i drive only four banger 5 speeds[except the van,it had a six but was a five speed so i got it,i dont drive much anyway].

and most suvs do come in a four or six banger model,hell,you cant drive over 85mph without getting pulled over,massive 500hp motors are obsolete[for street driving].but i am a fan of personal choice and freedom.i just wish people would think about the repercussions of their actions instead of blindly going with their greed.

having said that,i also have a firebird as my daily driver,but it has a fourbanger,and gets about 30 on the hiway[it will get over 40mpg hiway when im done with it].and its 10x cooler then an suv,but it barely has room for me. :D

any way back to topic. guns kick ass.

Hapsburg

11-11-05, 01:12 AM

This will problably be one of the few times I ever agree with mars13. Guns are cool.
We must have a means to defend ourselves from ourselves. I often define myself as liberal or at least left-of-centre, and I belive that the right to defend ourselves in any way possible is a basic human right, and if guns help us defend ourselves easier, then let my people have guns.

mars13

11-11-05, 01:41 AM

from my cold dead hands you damn dirty apes!!!

spuriousmonkey

11-11-05, 10:55 AM

its was created to protect all the other rights we should have.

if people would shoot retards when they try and take away your rights,people would eventualy stop trying to take them away.

You have a right to be your own criminal justice system?

I have never heard about this. Could you quote it?

chuck u farley

11-11-05, 11:29 AM

Really now? that's a very interesting interpretation considering. Popular with gun-nuts though it may be, however, it's not reflected at all in the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is pretty clear that it's sitting there to help protect the state - not individuals.

There are plenty of quotes around, by Madison and Washington, Jefferson, Tenche Coxe, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Franklin, John Adams, Richard Henry Lee and others about the purpose of the second amendment and the right of the citizenry to possess weapons. I have not seen any that state that the purpose of the second amendment is to protect the government, either from a foreign power or from it's own citizens. They all emphasize that an armed populace can protect itself from the government. I can understand perhaps some comment from one of them referring to helping the government against a foreign power. But I haven't found these quotes. Can you please show some from these guys or from any of their contemporary colleagues that support your point of view? Thank you.

spidergoat

11-11-05, 11:33 AM

So the constitution supports your right to a violent overthrow of the government?

When do we start?

spuriousmonkey

11-11-05, 11:34 AM

Two schools of thought regarding the Second Amendment have dominated the debate on this issue over recent years:
* Standard Model (or Individual Right Model): The Second Amendment protects the rights of an individual to own firearms. The "militia" of the Second Amendment is comprised of the armed citizenry at large, but in no way is the individual right dependent on actual service in militia duty.
* States' Right Model (or Collective Right Model): The Second Amendment protects the right of States to form armed militias, and the right of individuals to possess arms as needed to serve in those militias. There is also the issues of how the 14th amendment, which applies the bill of rights to the states would convert even this interpretation to an individual rights model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

if it in an encyclopedia it must be common knowledge.

chuck u farley

11-11-05, 11:42 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

if it in an encyclopedia it must be common knowledge.

Good for you Mr. Monkey! You're beginning to understand. Now, scroll down a little at Wikipedia and keep reading what, in their own words, Madison and Jefferson and John Adams and the others had in mind about the populace being armed. It's presented there so that anybody can understand.

spuriousmonkey

11-11-05, 12:15 PM

Yes, and other people have other interpretations.

You see there is the second amendment as it is written down. And then there are intrepretations of what is written down. Obviously you can quote anyone who agrees with your own interpretation. But as I have quoted myself, there are at least 2 major interpretations. One of which you find disagreeable and therefore ignore every time it is mentioned and keep refering to your own interpretation.

So scroll up and read again about the existence of two schools of thought on the interpretation of the second. And there is your answer to your previous question. Could you show anyone to support a particular view. Well, we don''t even have to quote an individual. It is apparently commonly accepted that there are 2 major schools of thought on how to interpret the 2nd. One of which gives a central role to the state.

Have I now repeated myself enough?

chuck u farley

11-11-05, 12:23 PM

Baron Max

11-11-05, 12:48 PM

So the constitution supports your right to a violent overthrow of the government?

Absolutely it does! Read some of Thomas Jefferson's papers, you'll see the basic thinking that went into the Constitution ...and rightfully so.

Baron Max

spidergoat

11-11-05, 12:50 PM

Great, I'm starting the American Liberation Army, who's with me?

spuriousmonkey

11-11-05, 12:54 PM

I am because although I am not a citizen of the US they made me sign an oath of allegiance to the constitution of the United States of America.

Baron Max

11-11-05, 12:54 PM

Great, I'm starting the American Liberation Army, who's with me?

Well, explain your basic position and the goals, and I'll sign up. Or are you suggesting a revolution without an "exit strategy"????

I think the first thing we should do is shoot all politicians. Then we can elect new politicians for the positions ...but the minute that they begin to act and talk like politicians, we should shoot them, too. And anyone who WANTS to be a politician should be shot just for considering that as a career!

Baron Max

spuriousmonkey

11-11-05, 12:55 PM

Have you repeated yourself enough? There may be 10,000 interpretations around today. What did the guys who set up the USA and the Constitution think? You are resorting to sophistry again Mr. Monkey.

It doesn't really matter what they think. It matters what is written down.

analogy:
Who know what god really thought. It's what in the bible that counts.

Anyway, I don't see how you can misinterpret 'two major schools of thought'. It is not quite the same as 'one major school of thought, but there are 10.000 other interpretations who are obviously all wrong'.

spuriousmonkey

11-11-05, 12:58 PM

I think the first thing we should do is shoot all politicians. Then we can elect new politicians for the positions ...but the minute that they begin to act and talk like politicians, we should shoot them, too. And anyone who WANTS to be a politician should be shot just for considering that as a career!

Baron Max

I knew we would agree on something in the end!

Baron Max

11-11-05, 01:04 PM

I knew we would agree on something in the end!

Great! Now tell me how we're gonna' shoot all those people if the politicians have confiscated all of our guns???? See? If we have to slit their throats, we'll get blood all over our clothes, ruining a good shirt and pair of pants!

Baron Max

chuck u farley

11-11-05, 01:12 PM

It doesn't really matter what they think. It matters what is written down.

analogy:
Who know what god really thought. It's what in the bible that counts.

Anyway, I don't see how you can misinterpret 'two major schools of thought'. It is not quite the same as 'one major school of thought, but there are 10.000 other interpretations who are obviously all wrong'.

Of course it matters what they thought. That is why one of those interpretations is in error.

Which one? That's easy. Read carefully each interpretation. Then, read what Jefferson, Madison, et al wrote about this.

spuriousmonkey

11-11-05, 01:14 PM

spuriousmonkey

11-11-05, 01:15 PM

Of course it matters what they thought. That is why one of those interpretations is in error.

Which one? That's easy. Read carefully each interpretation. Then, read what Jefferson, Madison, et al wrote about this.

I get it. So something supreme judges and specialists in the field can't agree upon is clear to you? Because you say so I have to believe it? Sorry, but I am not a very religious man.

chuck u farley

11-11-05, 01:35 PM

What about cambodia style?

Take two prisoners. Give one of them a shovel. Take him away to dig a grave. Make him stand in front of the grave. Hit him at the back of the head with his own shovel. Give shovel to other prisoner. Let him fill up the grave. Go back for tea.

No blood no mess no sweat.

Interesting idea. But, no, the firearms strategy is better. Now, go get yourself a good rifle. A 30 cal. will do. Then start practicing. Tom Jefferson would be proud of you.

chuck u farley

11-11-05, 01:38 PM

This new revolutionary army got me to thinking. Being as I'm a veteran of military service, I figger that I outrank you, Private Monkey. Now, if you ever contort and convolute a simple premise ever again, I'll have you scrubbing the shitters with a tooth brush.

chuck u farley

11-11-05, 01:44 PM

Because you say so I have to believe it?

You don't have to believe it because I say so, Private Monkey. Do a little research. Read what the guys, Jefferson, Madison, et al, had to say. Then, tell us what you think they meant.

No liberty for you today, Private. Report to the Company head at 1900 hours. Bring a tooth brush.

spuriousmonkey

11-11-05, 01:54 PM

Well, I was only a private, but military rank doesn't count in a militia. And if you are right and militia is people than rank means even less.

I'm not going to do some research. It's obvious to me that this isn't going to solve anything. The 2nd is an ambiguous statement. They probably did that on purpose being politicians and all.

Baron Max

11-11-05, 06:34 PM

And if you are right and militia is people than rank means even less.

...LOL! Even in young, junior high school football and basketball teams, they have a "rank", for god's sake, even if it's only something like "pecking order"! Ye're funny, Spurious, I would have thought that you'd already been "out in the world" longer than that?? Are you just a kid? No work experience?

Can you actually envision a group of fighting men, a militia, where they're all of equal rank, with no superior officers, etc? Can you actually envision that?

Baron Max

spuriousmonkey

11-11-05, 06:41 PM

I understand you completey misunderstood the sentence.

Baron Max

11-11-05, 06:44 PM

I understand you completey misunderstood the sentence.

And I've read it again, and I guess I still miss the meaning. Care to explain, or would you like to keep me ignorant for the remaining few years of my life?

Baron Max

spuriousmonkey

11-11-05, 06:50 PM

Rank in the military is assigned. A military rank in civilian life means absolutely nothing. They have nothing to do with each other. You must know that now that your rank has dissipated into nothingness being a civilian again.

I held the rank of private in the army. In civilian life I am a staff member of a university.

I do not have to take orders though.

i know this because I refused an order twice when I was in the army. Both times it had consequences.

In my current life it hasn't.

So I am quite sure rank in the army and pecking order in civilian life are two different things. If you would try to peck me I would kick your ass. If we would be in the army i would have to secretly plot to kick your ass. And make sure nobody found out I kicked your ass.

clear now?

Not that this all has ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand. But that is what happens when people like to confuse the situation.

Baron Max

11-11-05, 06:56 PM

Interesting. You don't have any bosses? None? I didn't know that there was such a thing, even in civilian life ...and I owned my own company!

Baron Max

spuriousmonkey

11-11-05, 07:00 PM

You can say fuck off to a civilian boss and leave.

Try to do that in the military. As I have explained I did that twice. It didn't go down well.

So I am assuming you never had any military experience otherwise you would know the difference.

Baron Max

11-11-05, 07:05 PM

You can say "fuck off" to a superior officer in the military, too. Sure there are consequences to suffer, but so, too, there are consequences in civilian life. If you say "fuck off" and walk away, it won't be long before you'll never have another job!

Ye're just spouting "idealism" now, even tho' you know, for sure, the realities of the situation. But that's okay, I'm used to people spouting "idealism" at me.

Baron Max

Roman

11-11-05, 10:24 PM

The major crime stats dropped in Texas also when the "right to carry" passed. Check out some of the other states with 'right to carry' laws, too. So don't just give us your opinion, check the statistics and you'll be more educated about guns and crime.

Red herring. Correlation, not causation. Crime dropped everywhere, of all kinds, regardless of whether there were gun control laws or not!

Baron Max

11-12-05, 07:38 AM

Crime dropped everywhere, of all kinds, regardless of whether there were gun control laws or not!

Well, then, if that's true, then the 'right to carry' handguns is still a good thing if people want to do it .....it causes no additional crime or problems. So we're right back to the issue of the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms shoudn't be infringed. Those who wish to take our guns should come talk to you, Roman, ....thanks.

Baron Max

Mogul

11-12-05, 07:18 PM

Red herring. Correlation, not causation. Crime dropped everywhere, of all kinds, regardless of whether there were gun control laws or not!

http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html

Crime dropped like this? I think not! If crime dropped everywhere, there must be some 'causation'. Care to speculate what it was? Hint: it wern't the Brady Bunch of Bills! :confused:

Some statistics would be lovely.

mars13

11-13-05, 01:21 PM

the fact is,the founding fathers knew guns are a good idea,and they specificly put in a provision to allow us to have them.

every single place in america where carry laws have beed introduced crime has dropped,not once has crime gone up anywhere guns became more legal.

criminals commit crimes regardless of what the laws are,so passing laws to stop crime is idiotic at best.it has never,and will never work in any way shape or form.criminals dont obey the law,thats what they do.

anyone who wants my gun or thinks people shouldnt have guns should try and take them away from the people that have guns, good luck thou,being unarmed and threatening to take away peoples civil liberties,well see how well that goes down.

GET YOUR PAWS OFF MY GUN,YOU DAMN DIRTY APE!!!!

Roman

11-13-05, 03:15 PM

Care to speculate what it was?

Abortion.

Roman

11-13-05, 06:32 PM

Does anyone have a link for "The Failed Experiment" by Gary A. Mauser? It was the paper about gun cpntrol in England, Wales, Australia, Canada and the US.

mars13

11-14-05, 05:18 PM

someone posted it a somewhere in the thread.

Roman

11-15-05, 10:08 AM

spidergoat

11-15-05, 12:37 PM

You can have your guns, but bullets should cost $5,000 each. Thanks to Chris Rock for this idea.

Baron Max

11-15-05, 12:55 PM

You can have your guns, but bullets should cost $5,000 each. Thanks to Chris Rock for this idea.

So now the damned liberal doo-gooders plan to trample, not only on gun rights, but on the very principles of free enterprise and capitalism?! How nice.

But seriously, I keep wondering how the liberals plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? I mean, let's face facts; criminals are called criminals because they don't obey the laws - gun laws as well as other laws. So if guns are made illegal to own or possess, and all of the "good guys" obey the law and turn in their guns, do the liberals actually, really, truly believe that the criminals will obey that law? ...even tho' they ain't obeying any of the other laws of the nation?

Baron Max

spidergoat

11-15-05, 01:10 PM

You could restrict the number of guns sold, perhaps one per person. You could close the gun show loopholes. You could require built in locks with biometrics so no one but the true owner could fire it. There are all kinds of ways to limit the theft of guns and their criminal use. Every gun could have a radio ID tag or GPS like Lo-jack.

Baron Max

11-15-05, 01:32 PM

You could restrict the number of guns sold, perhaps one per person.

What if a person wants more than one gun? How can you limit something like that, but not limit something like "one Coca-Cola per person"?! C'mon, be sensible and realistic at least!

You could close the gun show loopholes.

What are they? Please tell me.

You could require built in locks with biometrics so no one but the true owner could fire it. There are all kinds of ways to limit the theft of guns and their criminal use. Every gun could have a radio ID tag or GPS like Lo-jack.

Yeah, and all it does is makes LEGAL guns cost so much more, but the criminals would easily find methods around every single one of those "idiotic protections"!! ..and ye're right back to the same thing ...ye're limiting guns to the "good guys", while doing nothing whatsoever to keep guns out of the hands of criminals!

Listen, I'm not one of those screaming for the right to carry a howitzer on each hip. I'd be more than willing to agree to something that would keep guns from the criminals, but it must be something that targets the fuckin' criminals, NOT the legal, good guys! Every attempt at gun laws does nothing but limit the guns to the "good guys" ....and criminals are laughing their asses off about it!

Baron Max

spidergoat

11-15-05, 01:57 PM

You can easily limit people to one gun.

Gun show loopholes allow an individual to get the status of a gun "dealer", and avoid the restrictions of private purchases.

I'm suggesting ways of keeping guns from criminals, most of which are stolen from legitimate owners.

Roman

11-15-05, 04:18 PM

Your suggestions aren't very reasonable, spidergoat.

Firstly, most criminals don't even have liscences for their firearms. One fifth of criminals bought their gun through a liscensed dealer.

Obviously criminals get their guns illegally. That's an easy no brainer.

Now impose a limit to a very in demand supply. Do you know what happens when demand is greater than supply? Prices rise to match supply and black markets emerge.

There already exist in America more guns than adults. Guns last a long time. A Kalashnikov made in the 50's can still kill people today. A Winchester from the 20's can still kill someone today.

So what will legitimate gun owners do? Sell their guns for huge amounts of cash. Hell, if there was a one gun per person law passed, I'd go buy my one gun and sell it for heaps 'o cash.

spuriousmonkey

11-15-05, 04:26 PM

So we can't pass any gun laws because there are so many guns around that it has no point?

Hence we confiscate all legal guns. I'd imagine even in the US you would need a licence for a gun or some sort of registration (please don't tell me you don't even have that!).

Good for the economy. All these people have to replace their guns if they are able to obtain the new gun licence (which, I have to remind you, is not so easy to get)

What remains are illegal guns. We start with slowly confiscating them.

Nobody said a solution would be easy or painless. The current problem has been created over decades of negligence. You can't really expect a solution to happen overnight. But you can start.

And then we smelt all guns into plows for the starving children in the 3rd world. ;)

Roman

11-15-05, 04:33 PM

Wow. Confiscate all guns. What a way to trample all over the second amendment. While we're taking all the the guns, we may as well give the Jews a yellow star to wear....

spuriousmonkey

11-15-05, 04:37 PM

My apologies then. I didn't realize the Nazis in the US are always on the verge of a rebellion that can only be kept in check by the patriotic gun owning people of the US.

Roman

11-15-05, 04:47 PM

There's a slippery slope argument to be made somewhere....

mars13

11-15-05, 04:56 PM

protection of ones person is a fundamental right of any person on earth.

guns are one form of protection,they are just a tool.
body armour is also another means of protection.

cars kill people everyday,but you dont hear all the antigun nuts screaming to ban cars.
gravity kills people, oxygen kills people, people drown in water,why not make anything that can be classified as dangerous illegal?
BECAUSE ITS A STUPID FUCKING IDEA,THE VERY NOTION IS FUNDAMENTLY FLAWED!!!!
LIVING IS DANGEROUS,DEAL WITH IT COWARD!!!

Roman

11-15-05, 05:05 PM

protection of ones person is a fundamental right of any person on earth.

guns are one form of protection,they are just a tool.

A gun's main purpose is to murder. What a great tool, buddy. So killing people is protection now?

EXCLAMATION POINTS AND CAPITAL LETTERS MEANS I HAVE TROUBLE FORMING AN ARGUMENT!!! WHEN I LOSE I JUST SHOUT!!!

wesmorris

11-15-05, 05:12 PM

A gun's sole purpose is to murder.

Is it? I thought it was "to deter a threat" or "to shoot stuff because shooting stuff is fun so long as it don't bleed", which it is if you haven't tried it.

Roman

11-15-05, 05:15 PM

Is it? I thought it was "to deter a threat" or "to shoot stuff because shooting stuff is fun so long as it don't bleed", which it is if you haven't tried it.

I know dawg, I'm just praciticing my deBAITing style.

Deter threat, or hold up a train?

wesmorris

11-15-05, 05:35 PM

Train! Train! Train!

Heathen.

Bait and judge baby!

Baron Max

11-15-05, 07:02 PM

I'd imagine even in the US you would need a licence for a gun or some sort of registration (please don't tell me you don't even have that!).

Hmm, I don't know for sure, but I think registration is required on only handguns, not rifles and shotguns. I could be wrong?? ...I mean, I have been wrong before, tho' I can't remember when???) ;=)

What remains are illegal guns. We start with slowly confiscating them.

So if a criminal or one who's planning to use his weapon in a crime, are you actually thinking that he'd just turn over his weapons when the "good guys" come calling? Just like that?? "Oh, geez, officer, I was planning to kill old Joe, but if I have to give up my gun ....well, okay, here, take it."

Can't you see, Spurious, how you'd be trampling on the rights of the INNOCENT gun owners in a faulty and ignorant move to confiscate guns??? I mean, can't you really see that???

And let's not forget, criminals are called criminals because they DON'T obey laws. So passing one more law ain't gonna' do nothin' but make the criminals laugh harder at us!!

Baron Max

Roman

11-15-05, 07:13 PM

Why not just make posession of drugs&firearms punishable by death?

Baron Max

11-15-05, 07:24 PM

Why not just make posession of drugs&firearms punishable by death?

Well, we tried that with the crime of murder, but so many mamby-pamby, doo-gooder liberals struck that down, too! Surely they'd strike this one down, so we're left with a law that basically says,

"Murder is not very nice, but if you must do it, we'll give you three good, hot meals a day, a clean, warm place to sleep, free medical and dental care, lots of tv shows to watch and enjoy, ......, and we'll let you out on parole if you're a nice guy for a few years."

Making a new law ain't gonna' do shit! We have laws now that aren't being enforced, why should a new law be any different? Anyone who wants to can do whatever he wants and, quite often, get nothing but probation, if that.

And you want a new, useless law? As if we don't have enough useless laws already?

Baron Max

RoscoHowOriginal

11-15-05, 07:28 PM

I think it's funny that the same people who are so eager to protect gunowner's rights are the same people who don't seem to give a damn about the rights of those locked up in Guantanimo Bay and such places, and the ones who are so concerned with the rights of suspected terrorists don't seem to give a damn about the honest people who want a gun to protect their families.

Free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to a fair and speedy trial; every one is exactly as important as the others.

Baron Max

11-15-05, 07:34 PM

Rosco, those damned people ain't citizens of the USA! They ain't got the same "rights" as Americans and those rights ain't protected by anyone strong enough to support the damned scumbags!!

If those damned scumbags all had guns, they might be able to protect their own rights ....but we took their guns, didn't we? See? We're stronger than they are, we were strong enough to take their guns and not let them have any more!

See what happens when someone takes your damned guns??? Yet you'd let them take our guns, wouldn't you? Just like that, you'd disarm the citizens of the US without a fight .....so that we'd be in a similar situation as the Gitmo prisoners, huh? Think about it.

Baron Max

RoscoHowOriginal

11-15-05, 07:55 PM

Yet you'd let them take our guns, wouldn't you?

No! I said that the right to bear arms was just as important as any other right. This is an issue on which I agree with you. What I don't like are the hypocrites on both sides who use the constitution when it is convenient for their case and disregard it when it is not. For example, those who want to give terror prisoners the right to a fair and speedy trial because it is promised to citizens in the constitution, while saying that we should give up our constitutional right to bear arms.

Baron Max

11-15-05, 08:09 PM

Ahh, sorry, Rosco, I just read it too fast (and didn't comprehend it all!). I like posts which only use words from books like "See Spot Run". :)

Baron Max

RoscoHowOriginal

11-15-05, 08:26 PM

It's ok, I'm still at work and it's kind of busy so maybe what I was trying to say came out unclear. I do understand why you would assume I disagreed with you though; most of the time I do. :D

Baron Max

11-15-05, 08:31 PM

Oh, Rosco, that's not nice!!! Ye're fuckin' around on the Internet when ye're supposed to be working? Ye're being paid to work, yet you fuck off? C'mon, man, that ain't the way it's supposed to be done. How would YOU like to be the company owner and all your employees fucked off on the Internet?

Baron Max

Neildo

11-15-05, 10:10 PM

If you look over it, you will see ho disengenious the graphs are, as there's an order of magnitude difference between the murder rates of the US and England. For instance, there are about 6 homocides per 100 thousand people in the US, while there are about 10 homocides per million individuals in the UK.

The growing trend in UK crime compared to the US, when both scales are the same, show that American crime rates are far higher than the UKs.

In fact, a homicide rate that goes from 8 people per million to 10 people per million is hardly significant as an increasing crime rate.

In other words, the study lies, lots.

Um, that's not the point of that study. Population doesn't have much to do with any of it.

The point of the study is to show how many violent crimes are commited without the use of a gun, the amount of violent crimes that happened before guns were outlawed and how many happened after they were outlawed. It also shows how guns do not reduce crime, merely increase it. Guns help people more defensively than they due offensively as most crimes aren't committed using a gun so the defender has better odds vs their attacker. If banning guns reduces crime, why is there still a high amount of crime, but also an increase in it? Not to mention violent crimes increased due to a lack of adequate defense by the victims!

Guns aren't the problem, it's the people. It doesn't matter if the criminal has to use a gun, baseball bat, pencil, or his pinky finger, he'll use it and will usually always outmatch the victim in those physical cases. Get rid of guns and the offender will be able to outmatch the other. Without guns, what is there? Physical combat. A big burly person will usually always outmatch a smaller person. Now give that smaller person a guy, or hey, give em both a gun, and now the odds are even. Guns for civilians, just as nukes for countries, even the odds immensely and practically bring everything to a stand-still.

The study also shows how there is still a huge chunk of violent crimes commited with a gun despite them being banned because laws do not prevent criminals from breaking them but rather only evokes punishment AFTER the fact. Yeah, that really helps a lot for all the poor victims. :rolleyes:

- N

Roman

11-15-05, 10:51 PM

The study also shows how there is still a huge chunk of violent crimes commited with a gun despite them being banned because laws do not prevent criminals from breaking them but rather only evokes punishment AFTER the fact. Yeah, that really helps a lot for all the poor victims.

I'm not disputing what the study is trying to prove.

It just happens to show statistically insignificant data. So what; homocide rates climbed a little in the UK. For every murder there is in the UK, there are 10 in the US. And UK has stricter gun control laws than the US.

RoscoHowOriginal

11-16-05, 12:52 PM

Hey that's not fair. If they didn't want me to surf the net at work the cash register would not have a keyboard, a mouse, or firefox on it. Besides, I get paid on comission. When there are sales to be made of course I am making them; it's in my own interest. When there are not, I am reading sciforums or playing the bass. And that doesn't seem to bother the owners as long as the merchandise gets sold.

I am sorry for not talking about guns in this post and I will try not to do it again. I just don't like the idea of somebody talking smack about me in public and I don't get a chance to defend myself. I guess if you had a good imagination you could turn that into a metaphor about guns. If you want to talk about my job send me a private message, but right now I have to get ready for work.

spuriousmonkey

11-16-05, 01:31 PM