Gaby and her AR-15

[Sistrin]

The 2nd amendment specifically states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you support policy that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, you do not support the 2nd amendment. Lots of anti-2nd amendment people claim that they support it. They are liars. Most politicians are liars. Giffords is a liar. Here in NY we have Bloomberg, Schumer and Cuomo. They all claim to support the 2nd amendment. They are all liars.

Politicians lie. Giffords is a politician.

This is a quote worth repeating.

 

[Sistrin]

So should convicted felons be able to get guns easily?

Convicted felons forfiet many of their individual rights because they are convicted felons.

Should the raving mad be able to get them? If we can't infringe this holy right, then it must be universal, correct?

The right is universal, unless you do something which causes you to forfiet that right.

Well if we can't put any controls on gun ownership, then I guess we better scrap the 2nd Amendment.

This argument makes no sense.

That's OK with me! But then I don't have a pressing NEEEEEEEED for a firearm.

Other people do. Your fear of guns and gun ownership does not trump their rights.

Before or after part of her head was blown off by a gun?

She was shot by a man with a gun, not by a gun itself.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Convicted felons forfiet many of their individual rights because they are convicted felons.

But according to the other poster's contention this could be considered an infringement!

The other poster lost credibility in his or her argument the moment they decided to draw a stark line in the sand on any regulations.

The right is universal, unless you do something which causes you to forfiet that right.

Which, I will point out, is kind of the whole point of beefed up background checks.

This argument makes no sense.

I am responding to the other poster who indicated that Gabby Giffords ideal was so loaded up with caveats as to count as an infringement.

The point of people who want stricter laws on guns is not to "infringe" anyone's legitimate right to a gun but rather stengthen those limitations on that right.

Other people do. Your fear of guns and gun ownership does not trump their rights.

-sigh- My "fear" of guns? Really? Sister, I probably had a hunting license before you were out of diapers. Don't "preach" unless you know at whom you preach.

She was shot by a man with a gun, not by a gun itself.

Insightful.

I recommend you read the post I was responding to. I am doubtful that most people who are pro-2nd Amendment see it as "unlimited" in scope. And that was what I was responding to.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

This is a quote worth repeating.

Not really.

But repeat it I'm sure some will.

Do you have some reason to believe Gabby is "Lying" or "lies" since she's a politician? Do you think there should be no limits on the Second Amendment?

Surely you are aware of limits on "Free Speech", right? Why is gun ownership less prone to abuse than free speech?

 

[Belk]

Not convicted felons, who have already demonstrated their disregard for the law and the rights of others. Unless they have their rights restored by the judiciary.



Really? Where does it say that in the Constitution? Or are you simply eating up more lies.



Yes it does. You can, in fact, shout "fire" in a movie theater.

However, in our imperfect world, there are of course unconstitutional restrictions placed on our rights by our government, an entity with a monopoly on the use of force and the power (but not the authority) to terrorize, silence, imprison and kill individuals who disagree with it.



So how do you determine who wants to kill people? Oh wait, another response from you:



Well obviously we should just trust elected officials. They must be experts.

What is a barrel shroud? - YouTube

Please. Stop blindly listening to politicians and the media. Think these things through for yourself. Logical reasoning leads exclusively to the conclusion that gun control is ineffective and unjust.

Right. If only everyone could think as logically as you. Have a good one Schneiderman.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Define "raving mad". Your language suggests to me that you are not interested in holding an honest intellectual discussion.

Well, you want us to hold the test against "infrignement" awfully nebulously in your post. So why should I have to define terms more strictly than you?

Thank you for being honest. It's less frustrating when people who oppose the 2nd amendment actually admit it instead of trying to distort the 2nd amendment to fit within their extremely limited view of what it "should" protect.

You're welcome. I personally see no correlation whatsoever between a decent existence and an ability to get a gun.

I understand that having a gun in a "bad situation" would be a good idea I suppose. But I had such good training on gun safety in my youth when I was a hunter that I honestly don't think I could draw a bead on another living human being. I'd probably be so slow that the "baddie" who was intent on hurting me would just blow me away first.

I hear all this talk about "self defense" and I wonder how many people who preach the gun could actually use it if called upon. I've talked to people who were in war and it doesn't sound like killing another human (even when they are the enemy) is an easy task.

I'm also aware of how the rest of the civilized western world works and I don't see gun ownership as a guarantor of a good civil society.

Nobody needs a firearm. Nobody needs a television either, or a plethora of other things.

Well to be fair, when I walk through a tough part of the town I live in I always carry a TV just so I can throw it at an attacker.

Being human beings, we develop technology to improve our lives.

And I see almost no evidence that handguns on citizens really "improves" lives that much. At least when I look outside of the US.

The invention of the firearm has vastly improved the quality of human life on both the individual and societal level.

And the gattling gun and the machine gun and the atomic bomb I guess.

Does suffering traumatic brain injury make a politician more credible?

I think you just made my point.

 

[Schneiderman]

But according to the other poster's contention this could be considered an infringement!

I specifically cited the Constitutional provision for depriving a person of life, liberty and property following the due process of law.

Can you cite the Constitutional provision for restricting the 2nd amendment in a general sense, as AWB's and other restrictions do?

The other poster lost credibility in his or her argument the moment they decided to draw a stark line in the sand on any regulations.

The Constitution is a written document. Don't hold me responsible for what it says. If you hold the Founding Fathers in incredulity... well, that's your misfortune.

If you believe that the Constitution allows for "regulations" (aka, restrictions, or infringements) on the 2nd amendment then please point them out to me because in years of searching, and asking people, including lawyers and other people who claim to be experts, I have not been able to find them and nobody has cited them for me.

Which, I will point out, is kind of the whole point of beefed up background checks.

You don't need beefed up background checks for that. The current background checks already control for that. If we simply enforced the background checks we already had in place, this would be a non-issue. If your goal is to prevent unauthorized people from purchasing firearms, you should be telling the government to enforce existing background check laws. It is a crime for an unauthorized person to attempt to purchase a firearm. Currently, the US government generally does not investigate or prosecute for this crime.

I am responding to the other poster who indicated that Gabby Giffords ideal was so loaded up with caveats as to count as an infringement.

This sentence is incoherent.

The point of people who want stricter laws on guns is not to "infringe" anyone's legitimate right to a gun but rather stengthen those limitations on that right.

Uh... that IS infringing. Limiting=restricting=regulating=infringing. All different ways to say the same thing. Show me where in the Constitution it says that the RKBA can be regulated.

-sigh- My "fear" of guns? Really? Sister, I probably had a hunting license before you were out of diapers. Don't "preach" unless you know at whom you preach.

So what if you had a hunting license? There are plenty of people who hunt and/or own certain types of guns that they believe to be relatively safe and non-threatening, who simultaneously hold the same fear of so-called "assault weapons" which in reality pose absolutely no greater threat than any other firearm.

It's like Cuomo and his ilk who claim that they support the RKBA and substantiate it by stating that they own a shotgun. That's great... keep your shotgun. And stay away from my AR-15.

I recommend you read the post I was responding to. I am doubtful that most people who are pro-2nd Amendment see it as "unlimited" in scope. And that was what I was responding to.

In a discussion of fact it does not matter what most people think. It matters what is correct. The Constitution is a written document. Nowhere in the document is there any provision for the limitation of the 2nd amendment. To the contrary, it very plainly states: "shall not be infringed".

Do you have some reason to believe Gabby is "Lying" or "lies" since she's a politician?

Yes.

Do you actually trust politicians?

Do you think there should be no limits on the Second Amendment?

It's not a question of what I think should be the case. It's a statement of fact: there are no constitutional limitations on the 2nd amendment.

The government places de facto limitations on all of our rights but it does not have the authority to do so. Are you aware of the distinction between power and authority? The 2nd amendment is an unlimited right. The government frequently violates rights. The founding fathers knew that governments tend to violate rights, and they tried very hard to devise the best system to combat it.

Surely you are aware of limits on "Free Speech", right?

Yes, I am very aware of the degree to which the US Government violates its own founding document of law. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments are all violated on a regular basis.

Why is gun ownership less prone to abuse than free speech?

It's not. All of our rights are under constant assault.

Right. If only everyone could think as logically as you. Have a good one Schneiderman.

If all of our policy was logic-based rather than emotion-based we would live in a much better world.

Well, you want us to hold the test against "infrignement" awfully nebulously in your post. So why should I have to define terms more strictly than you?

Are you saying that you don't know what the word "infringed" means?

I certainly do not know what you mean by "stark raving mad". I'm asking you to define it because I don't know what you're talking about. "Stark raving mad" is not a diagnosis found in the DSM, and I never heard of this condition when studying psychology.

You're welcome. I personally see no correlation whatsoever between a decent existence and an ability to get a gun.

Well then maybe you should study more history.

I understand that having a gun in a "bad situation" would be a good idea I suppose. But I had such good training on gun safety in my youth when I was a hunter that I honestly don't think I could draw a bead on another living human being. I'd probably be so slow that the "baddie" who was intent on hurting me would just blow me away first.

Are you saying we should deny everybody the right to defend themselves with firearms based on your belief that you personally wouldn't have the stomach for it?

If someone doesn't have the confidence to change the oil in their car, should we ban people from conducting their own automotive maintenance?

I hear all this talk about "self defense" and I wonder how many people who preach the gun could actually use it if called upon. I've talked to people who were in war and it doesn't sound like killing another human (even when they are the enemy) is an easy task.

So why don't we leave it up to the individual to judge their own ability to use a firearm in self defense? Allow them the freedom to handle, purchase, possess and train with a firearm and evaluate their own capability. Here in NY it is illegal for an unlicensed person to touch a handgun. How is anybody supposed to figure out whether a handgun is a good choice for them if they can't even hold one until they go through a laborious and expensive licensing scheme?

Or is the objective to instill Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in the first place? That certainly appears to be the case here in NY. Stop people from even considering firearms as a viable self defense option by making it too difficult to even train with them, let alone purchase and possess.

I'm also aware of how the rest of the civilized western world works and I don't see gun ownership as a guarantor of a good civil society.

Are you aware of how "civilized" the world was beyond a couple hundred years into the past?

Well to be fair, when I walk through a tough part of the town I live in I always carry a TV just so I can throw it at an attacker.

What was the purpose of this comment? To demonstrate your inability to have an honest intellectual discussion?

Where I currently live, I do not have the option of carrying a firearm for self defense. I don't need to own a gun. I don't need to carry a gun. But the Constitution says I have a right to, and it is wrong that my state violates my 2nd amendment rights. It's unjust, and it is ineffective as a crime control measure. Guess what: if I really wanted to carry a handgun in Suffolk county, or in NYC where I frequently work... I could go buy one illegally. Just like any criminal who wants one does. But, being a law abiding citizen, I don't. Criminals are not affected by gun control. I AM.

And I see almost no evidence that handguns on citizens really "improves" lives that much. At least when I look outside of the US.

My statement concerned the condition of human life throughout history, related to the development of firearms.

As for your statement, referring specifically to the modern world: there are very safe places to live in the world today. Some of them allow people to own and carry firearms, others don't. In either case, culture plays a bigger role in crime trends than gun policy. And, the condition of safety only exists because somewhere, people with guns- whether private citizens or agents of the government- pose a violent threat to criminals.

And the gattling gun and the machine gun and the atomic bomb I guess.

These are implements of war. War is waged by governments. Historically, governments are the deadliest inventions of man. Should we ban governments? I can name a couple governments that murdered more people within a few years than guns in private hands killed since the invention of the firearm.

I think you just made my point.

Which is...?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

So should convicted felons be able to get guns easily?

If they're outside of prison, the fact they're out of prison is evidence that the state trusts them enough to run around loose. If they aren't trustworthy enough to not commit another crime, then why are they out?

Should the raving mad be able to get them?

Will a background check stop that? Or will it stop people with mental health issues from getting help because they don't want to lose their rights? That's an issue you run into, too.

If we can't infringe this holy right, then it must be universal, correct?

Do convicted felons and the mentally ill have a right to protect themselves the same as you or me?

Well if we can't put any controls on gun ownership, then I guess we better scrap the 2nd Amendment. That's OK with me! But then I don't have a pressing NEEEEEEEED for a firearm.

Passing a constitutional amendment to repeal the second amendment is the honest way to go about it.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Can you cite the Constitutional provision for restricting the 2nd amendment in a general sense, as AWB's and other restrictions do?

The constitution is not the CFR. It is not even the USC. Laws have always been interpretted and the Constitution has always been interpretted.

As noted earlier the discussion around "free speech" has limitations. It is not an unlimited right.

Going all the way back to John Stuart Mill who espoused a very broad freedom of speech, he still noted "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Up to Schenk v United States and Holmes decision (often short handed to "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater").

I think people can reasonably discuss the limits of which these things are applied and how much of a "danger" is present in a supposed "clear and present danger", but the fact remains these ideals listed in the Constitution are not immune to interpretation.

The Constitution does not address every eventuality or application. For this reason we have laws and the CFR to help in applying laws.

The Constitution is a written document. Don't hold me responsible for what it says. If you hold the Founding Fathers in incredulity... well, that's your misfortune.

"Incredulity"? Do you think the Founding Fathers meant for the COnstitution to be the sole source of legal decision in the US?

Even the Founding Fathers themselves seemed to be OK with a "living" constitution! HEre's a quote from Thomas Jefferson on the topic:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

This is a topic that has been discussed at length by legal scholars since the founding of the Republic.

WHich of us is "incredulous"?

This sentence is incoherent.

Actually, technically speaking, while you may disagree with my sentence, or you may find some technical error on my part, it is not incoherent. It was clearly phrased and outlined in a linear fashion my intended meaning.

Please, if you wish to have an adult and reasonable conversation, I suggest you learn how to read, or you moderate your own snark.

Uh... that IS infringing. Limiting=restricting=regulating=infringing. All different ways to say the same thing. Show me where in the Constitution it says that the RKBA can be regulated.

And this takes me back to my interpretation of your original point which is that any limitation is unacceptable to you. Which opens the gates of hell in application. Let toddlers have guns (or are you of the opinion that they are not Americans?) Let the mentally ill of any level of affectation have guns (or does one cease to be an American when one develops schizophrenia?) Let the parolee out on his or her "second strike" have guns! (Or does one cease to become an American upon incarceration?)

I see nothing in the constitution which bars these individuals from their duly annointed 2nd Amendment rights!

So what if you had a hunting license?

It is dispositive against her claim of my "fear" of guns.

There are plenty of people who hunt and/or own certain types of guns that they believe to be relatively safe and non-threatening, who simultaneously hold the same fear of so-called "assault weapons" which in reality pose absolutely no greater threat than any other firearm.

So I take you have had not formal gun safety training? Who in their right mind that has had gun safety training thinks of any gun as "relatively safe" and "non-threatening"???? (Please tell me you don't own any guns if that is the kind of gun safety training you got. The kind I got taught me never to point a gun toward another person even if I was sure it was 'unloaded' and that effectively no gun is to be treated as 'non-threatening'.)

Do you actually trust politicians?

Yes. I trust them just as much as I trust any other person. If they show me they should not be trusted I will not trust them. But I do not start out assuming someone is a liar if I simply disagree with them.

Perhaps this is the problem. If one starts off afraid of their fellow citizens and the people they themselves "hire" to be their representative then perhaps there is an underlying problem that should be addressed before we give that person a gun.

I certainly do not know what you mean by "stark raving mad". I'm asking you to define it because I don't know what you're talking about. "Stark raving mad" is not a diagnosis found in the DSM, and I never heard of this condition when studying psychology.

So according to you, at what point in the DSM IV does one cease to be an American undeserving of the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution?

Are you saying we should deny everybody the right to defend themselves with firearms based on your belief that you personally wouldn't have the stomach for it?

Well considering how many studies have found that guns in the home are more often used to kill loved ones (accidentally or on purpose) or used in suicides, I guess I'm making more of a point about the logic behind increasing the prevalence of guns in our society.

If someone doesn't have the confidence to change the oil in their car, should we ban people from conducting their own automotive maintenance?

Good question! If people are prone to dump used motor oil in the creek out behind the garage then yeah, let's do that. There are limitations on things like that, especially when it can possibly harm others.

So why don't we leave it up to the individual to judge their own ability to use a firearm in self defense?

Oh, I don't know! Because maybe people are too sure of themselves until the rubber meets the road and in the process we load up our citizenry with guns because we are Americans and inherently distrust and fear our neighbors and wind up shooting ourselve or our loved ones with those guns?

But hey, why not "run the experiement"?

Allow them the freedom to handle, purchase, possess and train with a firearm and evaluate their own capability.

I know you will hate this question, but I'm a trained chemist. WOuld you be oK living beside me in our neighborhood if I felt confident I could handle having a couple pounds of plutonium in my house or out in the shed out back?

Give me the freedom to purchase, possess and enjoy my plutonium. I promise that I know the danger of putting a critical mass together and flooding your home with neutrons sufficient to kill you and your family within 2 weeks. I'll keep two buckets of Pu(VI) solution, each 1/2 a critical mass and I'll keep 'em far enough apart.

What was the purpose of this comment? To demonstrate your inability to have an honest intellectual discussion?

It's called a "Joke". You may wish to look it up between bouts of hiding in the bathroom with a copy of the Constitution.

Would you like me to explain the joke? You see, many people who love guns a lot are quick to point out how anything can be used to hurt other people, so since we were talking about TV's I thought I'd play that one up.)

It's unjust, and it is ineffective as a crime control measure. Guess what: if I really wanted to carry a handgun in Suffolk county, or in NYC where I frequently work... I could go buy one illegally. Just like any criminal who wants one does. But, being a law abiding citizen, I don't. Criminals are not affected by gun control. I AM.

Criminals would be affected by gun control if we, as a nation, didn't have the highest density of gun ownership of any developed country on earth. Statistically it means MORE GUNS, and MORE GUNS means EASIER ACCESS to guns (just mathematically).

But on top of that for some odd reason our love of guns has resulted in us being among the most trigger happy people on earth. It's almost like we have evolved into GUN-BASED HOMINIDS. Almost no other developed country has the gun homicide rate we do.

I know the studies are fruaght with uncertainty but generally I wonder why we stand out among developed nations in terms of gun homicides, gun deaths and gun ownership. Could there possibly be some correlation? I don't know. HOnestly I dont'. I've seen both sides of the debate. But there is something wrong with us.

Something dreadful.

Maybe there's something to that old saw from the Bible about those who live by the sword. We have made a national religion of the "sword" in our love of guns. And it looks to me we are dying by it too.

These are implements of war. War is waged by governments.

I think you better re-read that Second Amendme you talk about so much. Specifically focus on this sentence:"A well regulated militia...".

And I will also point out that guns were initially developed for war. While some utility for hunting is obvious, the development of semi automatics like your precious AR-15 and full automatics have almost no utility in hunting and are, ipso facto, "implements of war". Just an FYI.

 

[Schneiderman]

The constitution is not the CFR. It is not even the USC. Laws have always been interpretted and the Constitution has always been interpretted.

The Constitution is the founding document of law in this country and supersedes all others. When a law passed by Congress is incongruent to the text of the Constitution, it is in violation, and unconstitutional. Only occasionally is this addressed through the judiciary. As I have stated, our rights guaranteed in the Constitution are under constant assault and currently, many of our rights are being continually violated.

As noted earlier the discussion around "free speech" has limitations. It is not an unlimited right.

Yes, the right is unlimited. If you believe it is not, then please tell me what text in the Constitution limits it.

Going all the way back to John Stuart Mill who espoused a very broad freedom of speech, he still noted "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Is John Stuart Mill an anthropomorphised incarnation of the Constitution?

Up to Schenk v United States and Holmes decision (often short handed to "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater").

Again I ask: are you aware of the distinction between power and authority?

I think people can reasonably discuss the limits of which these things are applied and how much of a "danger" is present in a supposed "clear and present danger", but the fact remains these ideals listed in the Constitution are not immune to interpretation.

Nothing is immune to the usurpation of power by a corrupt body of government.

The Constitution does not address every eventuality or application. For this reason we have laws and the CFR to help in applying laws.

This is a strawman. I never indicated that the Constitution is the only document of law or that its purpose is to address every matter of domestic policy. But it is the founding document of law of our government, and the highest law of the land. Any subordinate law that violates its provisions is unconstitutional. There are innumerable unconstitutional laws on the books, enforced and upheld.

Power vs. Authority.

"Incredulity"? Do you think the Founding Fathers meant for the COnstitution to be the sole source of legal decision in the US?

Even the Founding Fathers themselves seemed to be OK with a "living" constitution! HEre's a quote from Thomas Jefferson on the topic:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

This is a topic that has been discussed at length by legal scholars since the founding of the Republic.

WHich of us is "incredulous"?

Only in dishonesty can one take a letter in which Thomas Jefferson explained that a constitution should contain within itself a provision for amendment (which the US Constitution does) and twist it to mean that the Constitution should be viewed as a "living document" and its text ignored.

Actually, technically speaking, while you may disagree with my sentence, or you may find some technical error on my part, it is not incoherent. It was clearly phrased and outlined in a linear fashion my intended meaning.

No. Somewhere, you made a grammatical error that prevents me from understanding what that sentence is supposed to mean. If you wish your point to be expressed, please correct it so I can understand you. I do not understand what that sentence is supposed to mean.

Please, if you wish to have an adult and reasonable conversation, I suggest you learn how to read, or you moderate your own snark.

I am not dishonest enough to suggest that you do not know how to write. But you did make an error which prevents what you have written from being understood. If you wish to engage in honest intellectual discussion, correct the mistake so it can continue. Otherwise, continue being dishonest.

And this takes me back to my interpretation of your original point which is that any limitation is unacceptable to you. Which opens the gates of hell in application. Let toddlers have guns (or are you of the opinion that they are not Americans?)

Toddlers are dependents. They can own a gun in the same way they can own radio flyer wagon. That is to say... any possession of a toddler is actually a possession of their parent or guardian.

What age were you when you first started shooting?

Let the mentally ill of any level of affectation have guns (or does one cease to be an American when one develops schizophrenia?)

There is due process of law, in accordance with Constitutional provisions, to prevent a person adjudicated mentally deficient from possessing a firearm.

Let the parolee out on his or her "second strike" have guns! (Or does one cease to become an American upon incarceration?)

Same deal as above. The 5th amendment addresses this.

I see nothing in the constitution which bars these individuals from their duly annointed 2nd Amendment rights!

Yet you claim to see something in the Constitution that allows you to infringe on my rights, despite me being a peaceful and law abiding citizen with no criminal history or indication of mental illness?

You're contradicting yourself.

It is dispositive against her claim of my "fear" of guns.

No it isn't.

So I take you have had not formal gun safety training?

Yes, I have. Boy Scouts and NJROTC to name some official avenues, plus extensive safety training and experience in other settings.

Who in their right mind that has had gun safety training thinks of any gun as "relatively safe" and "non-threatening"????

Anyone who recognizes that a gun is merely an object that requires a person to carry out negligence or violence.

Who in their right mind who has safety training believes that guns sometimes just "go off"? Follow the 4 rules of gun safety and nobody gets hurt.

(Please tell me you don't own any guns if that is the kind of gun safety training you got. The kind I got taught me never to point a gun toward another person even if I was sure it was 'unloaded' and that effectively no gun is to be treated as 'non-threatening'.)

I own numerous firearms, some of which would probably frighten you from the sounds of it. Apparently you were taught incorrectly. The rule in question goes, "Never point a firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy". A criminal who is trying to kill me, or a criminal who is trying to rape someone, is something I am willing to destroy. If you aren't willing to destroy someone who is trying to kill you... well, that's your problem.

Yes. I trust them just as much as I trust any other person. If they show me they should not be trusted I will not trust them. But I do not start out assuming someone is a liar if I simply disagree with them.

You must not be familiar with politics. And your worldview seems dangerously naive.

Name me one elected politician on the federal level whom you believe to be completely trustworthy.

Perhaps this is the problem. If one starts off afraid of their fellow citizens and the people they themselves "hire" to be their representative then perhaps there is an underlying problem that should be addressed before we give that person a gun.

I'm not afraid of my fellow citizens. But I'm also not ignorant of the fact that politicians are overwhelmingly dishonest and untrustworthy.

Name me one elected politician on the federal level whom you believe to be completely trustworthy.

So according to you, at what point in the DSM IV does one cease to be an American undeserving of the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution?

Why won't you answer the question?

I'll answer yours, since I have nothing to fear... Since the Constitution specifies that a person can only be deprived of life, liberty or property through due process of law... first he would need to do something to warrant being brought before a court to be adjudicated mentally defective.

Well considering how many studies have found that guns in the home are more often used to kill loved ones (accidentally or on purpose) or used in suicides, I guess I'm making more of a point about the logic behind increasing the prevalence of guns in our society.

You mean the false studies carried out by frauds like Arthur Kellerman?

Good question! If people are prone to dump used motor oil in the creek out behind the garage then yeah, let's do that. There are limitations on things like that, especially when it can possibly harm others.

Yes, there are regulations on how to safely handle hazardous waste. Just like there are regulations on the safe handling of firearms, and prohibitions on violence. But when you talk about prohibiting people with no criminal record or background of mental illness from owning certain firearms just because there's a .01% chance they might kill someone, the analogy is that we should prohibit anyone from changing the oil in their own car because there's a slight chance they will dump the used oil in the creek. Or, more fittingly, in the town's drinking water.

Oh, I don't know! Because maybe people are too sure of themselves until the rubber meets the road and in the process we load up our citizenry with guns because we are Americans and inherently distrust and fear our neighbors and wind up shooting ourselve or our loved ones with those guns?

But hey, why not "run the experiement"?

Well gee, when you legislate away any and all personal responsibility over a couple generations, yes, the result is that you get people who don't know how to take care of themselves, fend for themselves, defend themselves or make their own decisions. Yes, Americans are increasingly developing identity and responsibility problems. Prohibiting them from lawfully training with firearms in an effort to evaluate their own ability to handle them does not help. Also, people like myself who are confident and skilled in the use of firearms should not be punished- should not be deprived liberty without due process of law- based on the possibility that another section of the populace lacks the confidence and aptitude for firearms handling. Again, just because one person doesn't have the confidence to change their own oil doesn't mean I should be prohibited from changing mine. Or from carrying out my own drivetrain swap if I so choose.

I know you will hate this question, but I'm a trained chemist. WOuld you be oK living beside me in our neighborhood if I felt confident I could handle having a couple pounds of plutonium in my house or out in the shed out back?

Give me the freedom to purchase, possess and enjoy my plutonium. I promise that I know the danger of putting a critical mass together and flooding your home with neutrons sufficient to kill you and your family within 2 weeks. I'll keep two buckets of Pu(VI) solution, each 1/2 a critical mass and I'll keep 'em far enough apart.

Plutonium is inherently dangerous and can harm or kill people absent any malevolent or negligent human activity. Not true of firearms. But hey, if you've got the funds and backing and want to start up your own nuclear power plant or weapons facility, go right ahead. There are in fact lawful ways for a private citizens to own and handle extremely dangerous radioactive materials.

It's called a "Joke". You may wish to look it up between bouts of hiding in the bathroom with a copy of the Constitution.

Would you like me to explain the joke? You see, many people who love guns a lot are quick to point out how anything can be used to hurt other people, so since we were talking about TV's I thought I'd play that one up.)

You're joking about depriving me of my rights for no good reason. I don't find it funny.

Criminals would be affected by gun control if we, as a nation, didn't have the highest density of gun ownership of any developed country on earth. Statistically it means MORE GUNS, and MORE GUNS means EASIER ACCESS to guns (just mathematically).

Just like how the War on Drugs means I couldn't get my hands on weed, heroin, cocaine, crack or meth within the next 24 hours.

Oh wait...

But on top of that for some odd reason our love of guns has resulted in us being among the most trigger happy people on earth. It's almost like we have evolved into GUN-BASED HOMINIDS. Almost no other developed country has the gun homicide rate we do.

No. We were violent before the proliferation of firearms. A nation founded through revolution on territory gained through genocide is predisposed to violence. If you magically made all the guns in the world disappear tonight, America would be more violent tomorrow than it was yesterday.

I know the studies are fruaght with uncertainty but generally I wonder why we stand out among developed nations in terms of gun homicides, gun deaths and gun ownership. Could there possibly be some correlation? I don't know. HOnestly I dont'. I've seen both sides of the debate. But there is something wrong with us.

Something dreadful.

Yes. America is a violent nation. See our foreign policy.

Maybe there's something to that old saw from the Bible about those who live by the sword. We have made a national religion of the "sword" in our love of guns. And it looks to me we are dying by it too.

Then explain to me how it can be that as shooting sports explode in popularity, gun sales are soaring, and the self defense industry is booming, gun crime and violent crime has been declining.

 

[Schneiderman]

I think you better re-read that Second Amendme you talk about so much. Specifically focus on this sentence:"A well regulated militia...".

The whole amendment is one sentence. The imperative clause of the sentence specifies that it guarantees a right of the people. But even if that were not the case, it turns out that I am, by law, a member of the militia. So you would still be wrong in violating my 2nd amendment rights.

And I will also point out that guns were initially developed for war. While some utility for hunting is obvious, the development of semi automatics like your precious AR-15 and full automatics have almost no utility in hunting and are, ipso facto, "implements of war". Just an FYI.

I think you missed the point here.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

The constitution is not the CFR. It is not even the USC. Laws have always been interpretted and the Constitution has always been interpretted.

It also happens to be the supreme law of the land. If we're going to interpret them, though, aren't we better served interpreting them in a way that limits the power of government?

As noted earlier the discussion around "free speech" has limitations. It is not an unlimited right.

But it certainly isn't limited to the power of your lungs and movable type presses.

Up to Schenk v United States and Holmes decision (often short handed to "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater").

The Schenk case was overturned in 1969. It was kind of repressive. People wanted to publish a pamphlet in opposition to the draft, and then were charged under the Sedition Act.

"Incredulity"? Do you think the Founding Fathers meant for the COnstitution to be the sole source of legal decision in the US?

Presumably they meant for it to be the supreme law.

Well considering how many studies have found that guns in the home are more often used to kill loved ones (accidentally or on purpose) or used in suicides, I guess I'm making more of a point about the logic behind increasing the prevalence of guns in our society.

At an absolute minimum. That is, the absolute lowest estimate of any study, there are almost four times as many defensive gun uses in the United States as there are murders. That's the lowest estimate.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

second amendment rights should not allow people who want to kill school kids guns.

Please put this into practical terms. You want a questionairre before buying a gun, such that you are asked if you want to kill school kids? Or what, exactly?

 

[Belk]

Please put this into practical terms. You want a questionairre before buying a gun, such that you are asked if you want to kill school kids? Or what, exactly?

How about we start with universal background checks so that all transfers are checked to ensure no one with a criminal history or registered as mentally ill can buy a gun legally?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

How about we start with universal background checks so that all transfers are checked to ensure no one with a criminal history or registered as mentally ill can buy a gun legally?

That doesn't guarantee anything.

All it means is that the people you don't have to worry about (those who follow the law about background checks, and thus are likely to follow laws against, say, murder) will comply.

Criminals and crazy people who don't care about the law won't follow it.

 

[Belk]

That doesn't guarantee anything.

All it means is that the people you don't have to worry about (those who follow the law about background checks, and thus are likely to follow laws against, say, murder) will comply.

Criminals and crazy people who don't care about the law won't follow it.

Well heck! Guess since this is not a 100% guarantee I guess there is just nothing we can do! Just like since people still drive drunk we should scrap all drunk driving laws.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Out of a very lengthy post I am snipping this:

The founding fathers knew that governments tend to violate rights, and they tried very hard to devise the best system to combat it.

Specifically the most effective of the ways they did that was to make We the People the equal to the military, such that we can hold them in check so they don't get out of control. This was never intended to result in large-scale operations including the cannons and artillery of their day, so the talk of limitless arms up to and including nuclear is just a red herring. Fully automatic (selective fire) weapons are mainly just for controlling a battle front. Other than that, semi-auto is fine and very specifically our right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

If we are worried about whackos going on killing sprees, which we should be, we need to fix that some other way besides making semi autos illegal for all. Pushing this too hard is more than likely to make a VERY large portion of our society get all up in your face like whackos on killing sprees, except this very large minority would be fully justified in such protest, up to and including civil war.

Please ask yourself if violating the Constitution is really that important to you, and if it is, recognize you are willfully putting the final nail in the coffin of this once great Nation. (And also embrace the irony that you would then be seeking a semi auto weapon just to preserve your own life, whereas now that is not necessary)

On the saner side of things, there's a lot to be said for actually enforcing laws we currently have. Apparently there's a LOT of prosecution of gun possession by criminals that has gotten a free pass? That would be a likely place to start. Personally I'm not against very selective application of new law to remove possession from the psychologically unstable who are at risk to go on a shooting rampage; but any such legislation is highly prone to abuse and therefore must be heavily scrutinized. Even in a best case scenario, it's really not going to accomplish what we want, which is no more turkey shoots. (Sandy Hook, Columbine, et al) This is not pessimism but realism, because the odds are so slight. How many whackos have perpetrated such crimes, compared to the total number of gun owners? The statistic is incredibly small. That tiny number will forever be able to slip through legal cracks until and unless there doesn't remain a single gun on the planet, and nobody has a feasible means of accomplishing that - even if your personal values did think it desirable.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Perhaps this is the problem. If one starts off afraid of their fellow citizens and the people they themselves "hire" to be their representative then perhaps there is an underlying problem that should be addressed before we give that person a gun.

This is DEFINITELY the root of the disagreement here. You start out from a foregone conclusion that of course our politicians are to be trusted, and you don't need a gun to make sure of it. Is this consistent with the Constitution? Or do you see it as saying that Gov't inherently has a characteristic of going out of control, and needs something to hold it in check, and that the population at large being "the militia" is the best answer to this dilemma? Every other provision of the Constitution can be summarized as hopefully preventing this from ever becoming a necessity, utilizing other means of checks and balances.

I know the studies are fruaght with uncertainty but generally I wonder why we stand out among developed nations in terms of gun homicides, gun deaths and gun ownership. Could there possibly be some correlation? I don't know.

I do. There are scads of gun threads on this site and others since Sandy Hook, and scads of charts and graphs and statistics have been shown. Put them all together and they show NO CORRELATION. The numbers make it look random. while I am willing to attribute it to something, mere gun ownership or gun ownership per capita is clearly not that something.

I think you better re-read that Second Amendme you talk about so much. Specifically focus on this sentence:"A well regulated militia...".

I think it is this very thread that has an excellent link to a good legal paper on exactly what that means. Here it is again:

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

And I will also point out that guns were initially developed for war. While some utility for hunting is obvious, the development of semi automatics like your precious AR-15 and full automatics have almost no utility in hunting and are, ipso facto, "implements of war". Just an FYI.

Removal of implements of war from the general population makes the intended Constitutional militia impossible. The honest way to go about this is a Constitutional amendment, not the nonsense we see you espousing.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

How about we start with universal background checks so that all transfers are checked to ensure no one with a criminal history or registered as mentally ill can buy a gun legally?

Ok I have no idea how much of a change that would actually be. Can you get more specific about what this "registered as mentally ill" means?

 

[Belk]

Ok I have no idea how much of a change that would actually be. Can you get more specific about what this "registered as mentally ill" means?

Here is a good overview.

'Universal background check:' What does it mean? - CNN.com