FAA

[Stryder]

attila-

Conspiracy implies secrecy. It's not a secret that most of the liberals are stomping all over the right to bear arms in full public view.
Most notably Slick Willy's "sporting purpose" definition of rifles. Which rendered the entire point of the second amendment moot.
He did more to invite the tyranny you fear with that one move than anyone else has done in the history of this country.

In case you were wondering, I'm a conservative.

[its_me_mango]

the weapons issue is real sensitive. i don't think i'd keep one in the house if i had a kid. when all the creeps are locked up, all the nuts take their meds daily, and the rest of the world can agree to live peacefully, then i would declare all guns illegal. look at history, the english bobbies only used batons for years and years and finally in the 1970's they had to stage protests in order to wear guns. does that work again a bomb planted a parisian cafe, a london bus, or any other place? maybe if you see the person planting it, you'd have a shot (wink), by the way, you wink with your left eye when you look down the site. just recently a bunch of nuts had their weapons taken away from them as they were boarding a flight out of hawaii! daggers, nail files, knives, etc, i'm thinking of sharpening my foils. (wink) in the meantime, here's a little RECENT story:
My brother in law was in germany doing a trade show, when the towers got blown up, as soon as they got the word, security guards stood right next to his booth - (he's sort of skinny) to make sure he didn't get Blown Up. The Europeans have more experience than we do with this, they've been hitting, france, england and germany for years.
sorry the winks got away from me

Profiling Edew:
Male, 34 years old, white/asian mix/150 pounds/conservative/likes waffles/likes bush/wants a gun but won't buy one/can't shoot/gets slightly nauseous just before a tough bout/clenches teeth/married/likes pork/never ate curried goat/sence of humor/delayed sence of humor/......

[ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: its_me_mango ]

[its_me_mango]

one more thought: in order to keep us from digging for more oil in alaska, i vote that we start using public transportation and do a little walking or bike riding.

[attila]

Stryder

You are still wacky. What are you drinkin? I know you don't smoke! Why are you living in a state that doesn't allow you to pack in public. Texas is good. I'm personally opposed to the public display myself. Way too many dumb *** bubbas out there. That's why the deer really have an even chance in hunting season, least around here-- hunting season rally cleans out the gene pool, know what I mean? Besides ,we libbies are a minority. We can't get **** done. If you want to blame somebody for not letting you pack heat LEGALLY, you really need to look elsewhere. You are funny.....

There are a few place where there a piece is trully needed. The Bronx, Chicago, LA eastside and South Central, The rosebud reservation. Anywhere else you are probably looking at a guy with a small penis...

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew:
<STRONG>

How about Amadou(sp?) Diallo? How about Rodney King? How about the Japanese exchange student who knocked on a door for trick-a-treat during Hallowe'en several years ago? There are literally hundreds of people who were killed because some person misinterpreted the *intent*. </STRONG>

And just what part of the "intent" of three planes crashed into buildings deliberately do you not understand? How do you "misinterpret" the statement that "Americans should be killed anywhere they are found"?

<STRONG>Me, I'd rather die than kill someone because I suspected the person intended to kill me.</STRONG>

Your choice. I would go the other way myself. "Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six", as the pro-gun folks say. ( But please, let's not let this turn into a gun-control thread, huh? )

<STRONG>
I actually have been in several incidents where I could have been killed (by a person who might intend to deliberately kill me, if you like). All occurred while I lived in Philadelphia. In no case did I do anything stupid as to try to defend myself with aggressive tactics. Calm discussion, respect for myself and the other person put the situation into a more amiable atmosphere and eventually no physical injury resulted.</STRONG>

Always the best outcome, but it doesn't always work, nor is there always time to try it. There is, alas, no set rule that will work in every case. Best to have a Plan B in case Plan A fails...unless you don't mind inflicting the grief for your loss upon your family and friends, that is. All very well to sacrifice your life rather than bloody your hands, but few of us are absolutely alone in the world: there are consequences to others, too.

[ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: Inquartata ]

[Stryder]

attila-

When did I mention carrying? I mentioned rifles, pinhead. Pay attention!
BTW, I can, and do carry legally when I feel like it. Thank you very much.

If you think that inner city areas are the only places that violence occurs then you are an idiot, and you won't be bothering me for long. Natural selection has been slowed down by you liberal sheep, but not stopped.

[Craig]

Before debating the constitution, let's make sure that we know what the exact wording is:

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.

Comment from Encarta: Legal scholars disagree about what right is protected by the Second Amendment. Some scholars have concluded that this amendment affirms a broad individual right to gun ownership. Others interpret the amendment as protecting only a narrow right to possess firearms as members of a militia. Supreme Court decisions have not resolved the debate. However, the courts have held that the Second Amendment does not preclude certain government regulations on gun ownership, such as laws prohibiting ownership of firearms by felons.

Comment from me:
Having the right to have a gun does not preclude restrictions on their use nor does it preclude knowing who has what kind of gun. If I have to submit registration forms and pay a yearly tax for owning a mode of transportation, then what is the big deal about having to register/tell the government exactly what kind of firearms I have?

Let's face it, back in the time that this document was written our forefathers owned and slept with slaves, women were not true citizens, and people owned guns primarily to hunt food.

Let's take the "liberals are out to take away all of our rights" bunk out of here - it is a gross generalization and is more posturing/polarization than anything else. Debate the issue, not the people who put out the ideas.

Cheers,
Craig

[Inquartata]

( Sigh )

Well, the counterargument would run along these lines:

Automobiles are hardly likely to prove much of an obstacle to a government which decides that it would like to use its military and police forces to oppress it citizenry. Arms, and state-of-the-art arms, in the hands of private citizenry would pose such an obstacle. Their existence thus acts as a deterrent to attempts to subvert the republic to tyrannical ends. But to have much effect it is necessary that the government not be able to identify where those arms are...which registration and licensing allows them to do very nicely. ( Never mind that for the present the government only wishes to have these powers for relatively benign ends, such as maintaining law and order and revenue collection via fees; things change, and one must remember the Law of Unintended Consequences. )

Also, as you noted, arms were specifically singled out for protection in the Bill of Rights, which gives some indication of the importance they held for the Framers. Cars ( or horses, or wagons, or boats ) were not thus mentioned. So to compare arms to modes of transportation is to compare the proverbial apples and oranges.

Finally, remember that "the courts have held" is not the same as saying that they have held correctly, or that they will not be reversed in future on equally strong legal grounds. The law is like that: fluid, and often ambiguous and situational...

[attila]

[quote]Originally posted by Stryder:
[QB]attila-

"It's not a secret that most of the liberals are stomping all over the right to bear arms in full public view."


Mr wacky.

I do pay attention. What part of that sentence you wrote don't you remember? Seems to me you know a lot about conservatism, but very little about Libbies. I'll hold off on the whole "who is an idiot thing,K?!

[damianip]

As an aside. I'm a liberal. In fact, in this relatively conservative day and age, I probably would be considered a leftist.

I believe that this whole second amendment argument has become so emotional and politicized that we will never agree on any acceptable solution.

I used to to target shoot, small bore rifle, as a kid (learned it in the Boy Scouts). I'd love to teach my son to shoot, but as I looked for a range and a rifle safety course, I found that almost every organization associated with any aspect of firearms is so obsessed with their political agenda that they serve only to alienate anyone who doesn't subscribe to their vehement political beliefs.

The summary? I don't shoot anymore because I don't want to make target shooting a political statement. Ilike shooting but gun nuts creep me out... make me nervous.

My take on the second amendment: You can have longarms but leave the handguns and automatic weapons to the police and military. I believe in registration, background checks and waiting periods.

If you want to be unfettered by these laws, we should allow unregistered ownership of single shot muzzle loaders, just like our forefathers had in mind. I don't think they had an arsenal in every house in mind when they drafted this article.

JMO,ICBW

Paolo

[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: damianip ]

[Inquartata]

Muzzleloaders were "state of the art" military small arms at the time. How successful do you think the American Revolution would've been had the British been able to restrict the colonists to "anachronistic" bows and arrows? ( Ask the American Indian. ) The 2nd Amendment was inserted to preserve the citizenry's ability to wage an effective insurrection against any future tyranny...

[damianip]

Originally posted by Inquartata:
<STRONG>Muzzleloaders were "state of the art" military small arms at the time. How successful do you think the American Revolution would've been had the British been able to restrict the colonists to "anachronistic" bows and arrows? ( Ask the American Indian. ) The 2nd Amendment was inserted to preserve the citizenry's ability to wage an effective insurrection against any future tyranny...</STRONG>

Some people don't or can't read. I said if you want an UNREGISTERED weapon, they should let you have a muzzleloader. I proposed that all other weapons should be registered. This is not an infringement.

This is a perfect example of why the Second amendment cannot be discussed with some people.

"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"

Well, if you are in the militia, I guess your rights should not be infringed. Since we now have a standing army obviating the need for a militia, this item is a bit shakey. I would venture to propose that the national guard now qualifies as a militia.

Many people have interpreted this Amendment as protection of the right of the states to raise and arm their own militias.

And what is an "arm" anyway? A sword, a pike, a musket?

Furthermore, nowhere is there a provision to allow for armed insurrectionagainst perceived tyranny.

Paolo

[three_hundred_fifty_five]

About driving in the United States, it is considered a privilege and not a right.

Why is that gun ownership and related arguments always come up in these threads??? It's the same people arguing both sides of the topic.

[lochinvar]

As an aside, up until recently Switzerland had a law on the books, I believe, that REQUIRED every male citizen over the age of 18 to keep and maintain a semi-automatic firearm in his dwelling. For the reason that all men over 18 are part of the militia.

(If I'm mistaken about that, please correct me.)

My point being, that we don't hear about Swiss folks walking into a MacDonald's or onto a playground and opening up on everyone in sight...

[attila]

The Pilots assn has just asked congress to allow volunteer pilots to carry weapons on board ( cockpit ,I assume). I dunno about that. Seems like it is going too far. I'd rather see a WELL trained air marshall or an MP having that kind of discretion. What if a pilot goes mental and decides to take everybody else in the driver seat out? The door would be locked so even the air crew couldn't get in,eh?! I would prefer that the guns saty on the ground. Besides ,I think the flying public has chnaged up in game plan. Should we ever be in a position where a guy holds up a knife again and attempts to take a plane, there will be many more volunteers on board to take him/ them out or die trying. Just life in the new world order. Don't we miss all those nice commies from the past. At least we kinda knew what they were up to. Seems like we are just looking back to the cold war reppressions as "The good old days"....

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by damianip:
<STRONG>

Some people don't or can't read. I said if you want an UNREGISTERED weapon, they should let you have a muzzleloader. I proposed that all other weapons should be registered. This is not an infringement.</STRONG>

Physician, heal thyself. I covered why registration is an infringement in a previous post. And the real reason


<STRONG>
why the Second amendment cannot be discussed with some people.</STRONG>

is that invariably one side or the other resorts to ad hominem attacks like "Some people don't or can't read". Usually it's the one with the weaker logical argument.

<STRONG>
Well, if you are in the militia, I guess your rights should not be infringed. Since we now have a standing army obviating the need for a militia, this item is a bit shakey. I would venture to propose that the national guard now qualifies as a militia.</STRONG>

Read some of the Framers writings, and the writings that formed their political philosophies, beyond the Amendment itself, and you find that to them "the militia" meant "the whole of the population", and that a standing army was precisely what "the militia" was meant to form a counterpoise to. The National Guard, being almost wholly controlled by the federal government, is less a militia in that sense than it is a reserve division of the standing army.


<STRONG>
And what is an "arm" anyway? A sword, a pike, a musket?</STRONG>

All of the above, and then some. Modern politicians did not invent the art of vagueness!

<STRONG>
Furthermore, nowhere is there a provision to allow for armed insurrectionagainst perceived tyranny.</STRONG>

Again, it is in the other writings of the Framers. There's no specific provision for quite a lot of rights which we enjoy, either, but they're protected by implication by the catch-all Tenth Amendment:

"The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Clever fellows, those old dead white guys, eh?

Apart from the last two paragraphs of your previous post, I agree with the sentiments therein, however. There is no longer a middle ground on this issue, everyone seems far too impassioned to really think clearly about it ( I blame the politicians and the interest groups on both sides who have tried to turn the issue to their own selfish ends. ) And I look askance at the "gun nuts" too...as much or more so as I do the equally fanatical and equally irrational "antigun nuts"...

Paolo[/QB]

[Buttercup]

atilla, if a pilot goes "mental", he only needs to take out the other pilot and crash the plane himself. He doesn't need a gun.

I'm all for arming pilots as an added precaution. The first thing they need to do though is to install new cockpit doors to protect the pilots!

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by lochinvar:
<STRONG>As an aside, up until recently Switzerland had a law on the books, I believe, that REQUIRED every male citizen over the age of 18 to keep and maintain a semi-automatic firearm in his dwelling. For the reason that all men over 18 are part of the militia.

(If I'm mistaken about that, please correct me.)

My point being, that we don't hear about Swiss folks walking into a MacDonald's or onto a playground and opening up on everyone in sight...</STRONG>

More than that---every male citizen between 18 and ( I think ) 50 is required to maintain their military issue weapon in their home---rifles, pistols, SMG's, grenade launchers, the whole nine yards. Private shooting clubs are also ubiquitous ( though registration and regulation are enforced ). Their rates of both gun crime and general violent crimes are even lower than in England---and even then the perpetrators are often found to be "guest workers" from the Third World, not Swiss citizens.

On the other hand you've got Thailand, where ALL private firearm possession---even Paolo's muzzleloaders---is prohibited and harshly penalized, with a murder rate 8 or 9 times higher than ours, even after excluding politically-motivated killings.


The mere presence, or even ubiquity, of weapons is apparently what is called a "necessary but not sufficient" condition for high rates of gun crime: the guns have to be available, but availability has to be combined with other factors so far unidentified with any certainty. Alas, whatever they are, we seem to have 'em; restricting gun ownership might well only send us in Thailand's direction, instead of England's...

[Stryder]

Craig- "..Let's face it, back in the time that this document was written .... people owned guns primarily to hunt food..."

Not true. Remember when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they were still suffering from wounds received in a war to overthrow a tyrannical government. To think that they cared nothing for protecting that very right, is ridiculous. The idea that they would need an amendment to protect the right to hunt would seem unnecessary since hunting for food, even among the rich, was the norm. Pres. Clinton's misguided idea that the American people only needed guns to shoot clay pigeons, or paper targets, and not assault weapons couldn't have been farther from the intent of the framers.

Face it, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, except maybe as an added benefit, and everything to do with the right of the people to hold final authority over their government.


It's true that some people can't discuss their passionate ideals without losing a little decorum, but I don't hold it against them. It is an important issue, and should be discussed.

BTW, well said, Inquartada!

[attila]

[quote]Origina

It's true that some people can't discuss their passionate ideals without losing a little decorum...

You still don't get that you are making an *** of yourself. Go look up "dillusional"....