# Second Amendment, Part Deux



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

For those who are still uncertain what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the second amendment:

https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.html

It's fairly cut and dried.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

jbmcb said:


> For those who are still uncertain what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the second amendment:
> 
> https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.html
> 
> It's fairly cut and dried.


It is anything but cut and dried. There are equally strong constitutional arguments to be made for a collective right to bear arms and an individual right to bear arms. For what it's worth, many, if not most, of the quotations on the page you link to actually support the collective right argument. The endless debate surrounding the "meaning" and "intent" of the Second Amendment is perhaps the prime example of the sterility of "original intent" jurisprudence.

*Disclaimer: I own no firearms at present; I have owned firearms in the past. I no longer hunt; I have hunted in the past. **I don't care one way or the other how this endless controversy is resolved. The U.S. is so awash in firearms that I can't see how a Supreme Court decision holding that the individual's right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment will change much. I am indifferent to the outcome of this debate. *


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

You know this part of the forum has turned to crap when people have to start making disclaimers...


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Lushington said:


> For what it's worth, many, if not most, of the quotations on the page you link to actually support the collective right argument.


Are you reading the same quotes that I am? I see a few quotes regarding militia, but none exclusively limiting the right to bear arms to the militia.



> The endless debate surrounding the "meaning" and "intent" of the Second Amendment is perhaps the prime example of the sterility of "original intent" jurisprudence.


I wouldn't have a problem with literal interpretation of the constitution. The problem is the courts seem to have a schitzophrentic method of interpreting the constitution, sometimes reading it literally, sometimes trying to deduce literal intent. They can't have it both ways. You can't say the framers intended there to be a right to privacy that isn't in the constitution, then say they didn't intend for there to be a private right to bear arms, because an amendment was slightly vague. They *intended* for the populace to be as free as possible while maintaining a reasonable, if not minimal, level of government.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I've stopped trying to argue with the Left over the utter nonsense inherent in the idea of a "living Constitution." It's simply absurd, but there's no convincing some people. 

So, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em: 

The Second Amendment, whatever it may have meant when it was written, has "evolved" to the point where NOW it means that people get to keep and bear arms. Individual, unregistered ownership. Unrestricted. 

Maybe this rule of Constitutional law is lurking in an emanation or a penumbra somewhere. 

Maybe my gun is protected as a matter of substantive due process (whatever the hell that is). 

Maybe it's part of the right of privacy I've heard so much about (after all, keeping a gun hidden under my bed certainly is more "private" in the literal sense than hiring a doctor to kill one's child in utero, where, by my count, there are at least 3 people in the room). 

I don't care where the right comes from. The Constitution is "living," you see. It can "grow" to accommodate me, for once.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

whnay. said:


> You know this part of the forum has turned to crap when people have to start making disclaimers...


A disclaimer is often necessary when discussing the Second Amendment because it so frequently deteriorates into a personal disupte over an individual's view of the virtue of firearms. The constitutional issue is separate from the personal view. The same is true of the right to privacy supporting abortion.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

It takes skill beyond my ken to be able to find a right to an abortion but not a right to bear arms in the Constitution.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I've stopped trying to argue with the Left over the utter nonsense inherent in the idea of a "living Constitution." It's simply absurd, but there's no convincing some people.


Still haven't quite gotten over _Marbury v. Madison_, I see.

And I've given up trying to explain to people that law is a process, not a static collection of rules and proscriptions. Of course, anyone familar with the Anglo-American system of common law should understand this intutively, but such is often not the case.

But, as I said, I don't care one way or the other. Enjoy your guns.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm a treeehugging, enviromeddleist, lefty, liberal who owns firearms. When this whole stale, preaching to the choir/ seller's table at the Great Western / leftist bookstore cum coffeeshop debate comes up I make like Monty Python and "run away,run away!" for a quality clothing, book or music store. To many of my ancestors believed that 'rising of the moon, pikes must be together nonsence.' Pikes indeed. I am working for a society where the right to bear arms is matched by the right not to have to.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Make all guns illegal for private ownership and the 2nd Amendment become a moot point. There is no need to own guns. It is very simple; law enforcement finds a gun, the gun is confiscated and destroyed. There is no need for wasting court time, just confiscate it and destroy it. Since there would be no legal right to possess it, there is no reason to have a court rule on it. Just like narcotics, possession in itself is illegal. 

For those who claim they have guns for hunting, use a bow and arrow. If you want to protect yourself, don't put yourself in a situation where you need to shoot someone. I've survived almost 38 years without having to shoot anyone. If no one has guns we can protect ourselves with rocks and knives.

I know this a bit extreme, but I'm tired of people whining about whether or not their gun ownership is a right.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Trenditional said:


> I've survived almost 38 years without having to shoot anyone.


Me too. But I've wanted to.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Trenditional said:


> Make all guns illegal for private ownership and the 2nd Amendment become a moot point. There is no need to own guns.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I know this a bit extreme, but I'm tired of people whining about whether or not their gun ownership is a right.


Uhhhh, you can't eliminate constitutional rights without a constitutional amendment. A law passed to eliminate gun ownership cannot override the Constitution. And I don't hear much whining from gun advocates. There's no need to whine when the ultimate law of the land plainly states your position.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I have to say I have given up trying to be reasonable on the 2nd Amendment. I was as moderate a pro-gunner as can be. Both the pro-gun and anti-gun lobby are ridiculous, dishonest, idiots. IMHO, there cannot be a single person that can sincerely declare legit the actions of either group. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. Hunting is more fun with a bow anyway.

I'm an American. I am a husband, a homeowner, and a business owner. I choose to have guns as a tool for killing PEOPLE - if the need ever arises. I embrace the full and total responsibility for them in and out of my possession and I will willing face the scrutiny of my peers in my community via a jury trial for any actions or consequences of possessing them. That should be good enough for everyone involved.

If it's not - I don't care. I'm keeping them. Try to take them if you must or just leave me be. I've grown ambivalent about the choice. 

Anyone that thinks cops could take guns is living in a dream world. Most of the cops that weren't U.S. Marines can barely operate their own handgun, much less shoot a rifle to any proficiency. Where I live every ******* worth his F-150 can shoot better than the SWAT team.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> And I don't hear much whining from gun advocates.


I do. And the sad thing is, most of the people who are loudest against gun control are the people I'd least like to see armed. Total kooks. No doubt there are plenty of sane gun owners, they just don't talk about it much. So these nuts hurt the gun owners' cause because people who are generally predisposed to be neutral on the situation think, _yeah, I agree with the right to bear arms, but good Christ, I draw the line at these people._


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I totally agree with Ksinc. There is a lot of dishonesty and self-serving behavior on both sides of the argument.

One thing that makes this a difficult subject is that what constrains the freedom in rural areas (gun control) can seem quite reasonable to some in urban areas. I realize there are people on both sides of this issue in both rural and urban areas.

This, abortion and several other wedge issues are weakening our country. The vehement disagreement and total lack of any willingness for compromoise on either side cause far more damage than anything that arises from the issues themselves. The dishonesty and ruthlessness of the argumentation from both sides is the sort of thing that drives a lot of citizens to complete cynicism.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I would add that I also find it amazing that anyone could be against private gun-ownership after watching the debacle of Katrina. To force me to rely on the police to protect my home & family in such a situation is clearly a violation of logic - if not civil and human rights. 

We mourn the slayings in Africa, Afghanistan, and Iraq, yet we think we can force Americans to be totally defensless in their own homes? 
That'll be the day ...

We simply need to start executing people that commit violent gun crimes. I would even throw negligence in there. If you choose to buy a gun you are responsible for that gun 24/7. If you can't accept that responsibility, then you clearly shouldn't have a gun. Explain the consequences of gun ownership and enforce them. I can't possibly fathom any circumstance that would allow one of my weapons to fall into the hands of a child. If I somehow did such a stupid thing I would expect that my community to rightfully demand a terrible price. If someone was killed, I would expect to pay with my life as well. Guns are brutal and harsh - black and white. Unless we choose to deal with gun-ownership in the same way, we will never get anywhere that satisfies anyone.

LOL I guess I sound less moderate when I get going ...

My issues with the NRA, GOA, et al position are I have no problem with qualifying, training, testing, or licensing a gun owner. I need a license to drive a car, I have qualifying restrictions on owning stock in an S-Corporation, I should have them to shoot a gun - whether or not I actually own one. So, don't register the guns, license the shooters. If someone has a gun and no license - do whatever you want to them. Life in Prison, perhaps? fine with me.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> If you want to protect yourself, don't put yourself in a situation where you need to shoot someone.


So then those law abiding people relaxing in the cozy comfort of their upscale house in their upscale neighborhood that have their home invaded from armed thugs were actually foolishly putting themselves in a situation where they needed to shoot someone? They were indeed being foolhardy buying a nice house in a nice area? RECKLESS BASTARDS! They deserve the trouble they get!

Guns are very equalizing. I could never figure out why liberals were against them.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I would add that I also find it amazing that anyone could be against private gun-ownership after watching the debacle of Katrina.


That's a narrow view. Some people look at New Orleans and think, "All these people should be armed!" Others look at New Orleans and think, "None of these people should be armed!" Very few look at New Orleans and think, "Some of these people should be armed and some shouldn't!" I think it is equally rational to suggest New Orleans is a good example of why strict gun laws are needed.

As it happens I sort of agree with you. When I lived in Manhattan and sometimes rode the subway in the wee hours, I carried pepper spray, which I suppose is philosophically no different from carrying a gun. Experience taught me, however, that if you don't behave like an ass, you stand a good chance of being left alone by the unsavory critters. I tend to believe that the "self-defense" explanation is either a rationalization or paranoia, the latter being my reason for carrying the pepper spray.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> This, abortion and several other wedge issues are weakening our country. The vehement disagreement and total lack of any willingness for compromoise on either side cause far more damage than anything that arises from the issues themselves. The dishonesty and ruthlessness of the argumentation from both sides is the sort of thing that drives a lot of citizens to complete cynicism.


I'm not sure that's true any more. I don't think gun rights are anything like (say) the sovereignty of a woman over her own body or equal protection under the law, two issues that right-wingers have turned into wedges of late. The difference is, fundamentally, that the Dems have decided that they can't win on gun issues outside of liberal elite urban settings where they already dominate. So they've effected a tactical retreat in order to make their overall message more compelling in the real swing regions of the rural West.

Say what you will about the merits of that position. That it is exceedingly good politics right now is undeniable.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> That's a narrow view. Some people look at New Orleans and think, "All these people should be armed!" Others look at New Orleans and think, "None of these people should be armed!" Very few look at New Orleans and think, "Some of these people should be armed and some shouldn't!" I think it is equally rational to suggest New Orleans is a good example of why strict gun laws are needed.
> 
> As it happens I sort of agree with you. When I lived in Manhattan and sometimes rode the subway in the wee hours, I carried pepper spray, which I suppose is philosophically no different from carrying a gun. Experience taught me, however, that if you don't behave like an ass, you stand a good chance of being left alone by the unsavory critters. I tend to believe that the "self-defense" explanation is either a rationalization or paranoia, the latter being my reason for carrying the pepper spray.


Well it shouldn't sound quite that narrow. Let me explain that as a true conservative, but also a libertarian, I simply don't believe that I can tell another husband/father that made vows to God to protect his wife and kids that they absolutely cannot have access to a gun to protect their family because I do not think they should. How a man fullfills that vow is between him and God, IMHO. On the other hand, I think there should be strict gun laws and penalties for any 'foolishness' with guns. When someone inserts themselves into that by being anti-gun then they accept responsibility for protecting that family, IMHO.

I totally agree that staying safe is 99% prevention. However, the unsavory critters are predators; and like zebras being stalked by hungry lions - avoidance theory is simply not much of a realistic plan. After you've been mugged and you realize you didn't do anything to attract attention you were just 'next' you might change your mind. I hope this doesn't happen to you - just saying it as an example. It has happened to me, in Atlanta on the train around East Lake station, going home from work in 1986. It wasn't fun and I did everything to avoid, run, and hide. Sometimes it doesn't matter. Realizing that you are defenseless isn't paranoia, it's self-preservation.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You are probably right that gun rights may not be the best example of my point right now, but you brought up two issues that illustrate my point well.

You are right that the Democrats are smart to get off the gun issue. Whether it's fair or not, those states out West with smaller populations control more Senate and Presidential Electoral votes than what their proportion would be if things were allocated strictly by population.

Its a reality that Democrats need to get far smarter about if they wish to be a factor in National politics in the long term.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

SGladwell said:


> I'm not sure that's true any more. I don't think gun rights are anything like (say) the sovereignty of a woman over her own body ...


Are you talking about rape? Because it seems to me a woman would require a gun if she wanted any say in protecting her sovereignty if someone wanted to violate it ;-)

Ok ... seriously ... I'm sure you are talking about abortion. However, I don't think anyone on the anti-abortion side questions the sovereignty of a woman over her own body. It's the sovereignty over the baby that we disagree about. Of course, a woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body (myself I have no problem with prostitution being legalized, but am anti-abortion), but she does not have the right to choose to kill another living being. And; the science is indisputable on this fact. I find it curious that some that accept global-warming science, still refuse to admit what abortion really is about.

I think the politics of the subjects are inter-twined because as long as we cannot all be honest with the facts, we can never find any reasonable compromise.

global-warming = theory with scientific backing and growing consensus
abortion = killing a living being with scientific certitude few want to admit
dem politics = W gets called "the anti-science President" by femi-nazis


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> she does not have the right to choose to kill another living being. And; the science is indisputable on this fact. I find it curious that some that accept global-warming science, still refuse to admit what abortion really is about.


It's not curious at all, really. It's a case of people simply letting their politics blind them to reality. Take away the political dimension, and the science is unequivocal.

After all, (apart from life-threatening cases) the fact that the child in utero is a human being *is the very reason the mother wants to kill it in the first place*. The fact that it grows independently, like any other organism, is the motive for wanting it to die. Then they turn around and say it is not actually an organism. Very odd.

As to the glorious suggestion that gun control be treated like the War on Drugs -- bravo! Let's take the very worst example of the modern American justice system, the most spectacular law enforcement failure, the most expensive, counter-productive criminal justice disaster, (one of) the most egregious examples of unconstitutional police-statism (when they wanted to get rid of alcohol, they passed a Constitutional amendment; none needed for cocaine, I guess -- more of that "living Constitution" at work!).

Yeah, let's duplicate that!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

An acquaintance was pro death penalty and anti abortion. I asked him if the death penalty wasn't merely late term abortion too? Everybody wants to be a social engineer. The problem, is we want to build a bridge for our direction, our mode of transportation and our convenience. Oh, and somebody else will pay for it. America is said to have a 'gun culture.' But nobody mentions the international small arms market that vomits enough firearms and ammunition into 3rd world nations so every child can tote a Kalashnikov ( one nation even featuring said rifle on it's flag) or other weapons often as not taller, heavier and better fed than they can ever hope to mature to.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

A well armed society is a polite society. Unfortunately, we are not well armed.

M8


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

People have the right to bear arms but with that right also comes some responsibilities. I fully support the Second Amendment but I also support criminal background checks when one purchases a firearm and I also think that a firearms safety course should be an initial mandatory requirement as well. Assuming a person is not a convicted felon or mentally ill and takes the time to learn how to properly and safely use and store a firearm then the government has no business in preventing them from exercising their Constitutional right.

Karl


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

Perhaps a look into historical events &#8230;

https://www.guncite.com/journals/rwstand.html

https://www.constitution.org/cs_defen.htm


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Anyone that thinks cops could take guns is living in a dream world. Most of the cops that weren't U.S. Marines can barely operate their own handgun, much less shoot a rifle to any proficiency. Where I live every ******* worth his F-150 can shoot better than the SWAT team.


I will agree, there are some very well trained shooters amongst the private community. There may be some who can even shoot better than some SWAT officers. That said, don't assume all officers can not shoot or handle their handgun.

I understand the idea of making all guns illegal was a bit extreme, but at the same token trying to claim that the 2nd Amendment authorizes fully automatic machine guns for private ownership is a bit extreme also.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> I understand the idea of making all guns illegal was a bit extreme,* but at the same token trying to claim that the 2nd Amendment authorizes fully automatic machine guns for private ownership is a bit extreme also.*


I am sorry, but could you please point me to the post in this thread that made that claim? If not, tossing that in as justification is very spurious.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I'm not bothered by "extreme." The American Revolution was "extreme," as pretty much all secessionist movements are. 

What bothers me is wrong, including ideas that are even moderate in their wrongness. 

Wayfarer, I may have been the one Trenditional was referring to. I said "unrestricted." 

And I meant it. I want the option of owning whatever the government owns. Why is it not extreme for governments to own the kinds of things they spend my money to buy and build? What makes governments more trustworthy? Certainly not their track record.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Trenditional said:


> That said, don't assume all officers can not shoot or handle their handgun.


I didn't, so what's your point?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Trenditional said:


> I understand the idea of making all guns illegal was a bit extreme, but at the same token trying to claim that the 2nd Amendment authorizes fully automatic machine guns for private ownership is a bit extreme also.


I never mentioned this either.

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said without sincerity and honesty the two sides will get no where. You're not addressing anything I said on the equivalent plane.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I am sorry, but could you please point me to the post in this thread that made that claim? If not, tossing that in as justification is very spurious.


I think he's probably referring to my statement in the other post. I said that I think there's a legitimate argument that fully automatic weapons that can be carried and operated by one person should be legal.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> I think he's probably referring to my statement in the other post. I said that I think there's a legitimate argument that fully automatic weapons that can be carried and operated by one person should be legal.


It is not in this thread and he has made more than one spurious corelation or introduced things not present.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> I want the option of owning whatever the government owns. Why is it not extreme for governments to own the kinds of things they spend my money to buy and build? What makes governments more trustworthy? Certainly not their track record.


So you want people to be able to own nukes? Including, say, terrorists?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> So you want people to be able to own nukes? Including, say, terrorists?


I think that is a great point. In general my view is for punishing people for what they do with weapons whether than for owning them. I would concede there needs to be some limit - ie WMD are not small arms.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I think that is a great point. In general my view is for punishing people for what they do with weapons whether than for owning them. I would concede there needs to be some limit - ie WMD are not small arms.


Agreed, but when we draw the line, then we get into that whole "hunting rifles are OK, but handguns aren't."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> Agreed, but when we draw the line, then we get into that whole "hunting rifles are OK, but handguns aren't."


Well not really, they are both small arms.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> So you want people to be able to own nukes? Including, say, terrorists?


Sure, why not? I mean, Rosie O'Donnel said we have nothing to fear from them so I mean, what's the problem then? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Every home should have secure second strike capability. Remember now, that includes silo based missiles, aircraft and submarines. Walmart could sell Triad home defense packages - made in China as the ChiComs already have a bunch of our technology from Los Alamos.

Karl


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

I haven't fully formed an opinion on private handgun ownership. In theory I have no problem with it, but, I also don't trust people to handle them responsibly. The streets are flooded with weapons, mostly not stolen, so someone licensed likely supplies them , causing thousands of murders annually. Generally, I am anti regulation, but in the case of guns the industry seems to be severely under regulated.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> I haven't fully formed an opinion on private handgun ownership. In theory I have no problem with it, but, I also don't trust people to handle them responsibly. The streets are flooded with weapons, mostly not stolen, so someone licensed likely supplies them , causing thousands of murders annually. Generally, I am anti regulation, but in the case of guns the industry seems to be severely under regulated.


In just what do you trust people to handle responsibly? People, unlicensed, abuse drugs, alcohol, automobiles, knives, axes, motorcycles, tools, bungee cords, etc. The list is nearly endless.

Contrary to your assertion, guns are one of the most regulated industries in the U.S. You can't buy a gun directly from Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Colt, etc. They only sell to federally licensed wholesalers and dealers. No other commodity requires so many layers of regulation. On top of that, most states have a plethora of rules and regulations, with none being common from one state to the next. Very infrequently do misanthropes have to cover any civil liability when they commit a civil infraction. Most states have some type of mandatory jail time when a felony is committed with a firearm, yet these criminal charges are frequently plea-bargained away during the legal process.

Gun manufacturers make reliable products which work properly almost everytime the trigger is pulled. Compare to your personal computer.

Until just recently, Michigan did not have a law setting the "castle doctrine", which allows individuals to use deadly force to protect themselves, their homes and loved ones.

The majority of states now have concealed carry laws, yet there has been no "wild west mentality" taking over, since various enactments. In fact, violent crimes have generally gone down.

When Federal laws governing high-capacity magazines in so-called assault rifles expired, everyone expected a flood of AK47's to be used in crimes. This has not happened.

In fact, no private, legally owned fully automatic weapon has ever been used in a crime. The only occurance recorded was that of a *police officer using one as a hit man.*

Year after year, responsible citizens hunt, protect themselves, hunt, and otherwise use guns for their intended purpose(s), and most crimes are committed with illegally-gotten guns; not from legal, registered dealers. There is no cabal of firearms dealers dealing in black market weapons domestically, and the streets are not "flooded" with illegal weapons.

The greatest danger lately, is the carelessness of police officers. Here in Michigan, five police officers have lost, or otherwise had their weapons taken from them in the last four months. Two officers had submachine guns stolen from cars, one of which was unlocked, and the other, the officer had been specifically told not to leave the weapon in his vehicle. Two female officers had their issue weapons taken from them forcibly, and the list goes on....

Several years ago, two Detroit police officers were wrongfully convicted of second degree murder, when a known crack addict tried to take one of their service pistols away from them in a scuffle, and then the perpetrator died of a cocaine-related heart attack.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

pendennis said:


> Several years ago, two Detroit police officers were wrongfully convicted of second degree murder, when a known crack addict tried to take one of their service pistols away from them in a scuffle, and then the perpetrator died of a cocaine-related heart attack.


Malice Green. Wow, that goes back a long ways. I was sure there was going to be riots the day the verdict came in.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Malice Green. Wow, that goes back a long ways. I was sure there was going to be riots the day the verdict came in.


The most rankling part of the whole affair, was that the media made Malice Green out to be a pedestrian, when he was nothing but a two-bit cocaine addict.

I hope Coleman Young burns in hell for his, and the police chief's remarks when the tragedy unfolded. They unjustfiably biased the city jury pool, and virtually guaranteed a conviction. The same sentiment holds for Kym Worthy, the city prosecutor who vaulted this persecution to higher office.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I am sorry, but could you please point me to the post in this thread that made that claim? If not, tossing that in as justification is very spurious.


It wasn't directed at anyone in particular. It was a generalization towards those who favor the NRA. The consistent argument is that the 2nd Amendment gives each of us the right to own guns. For some reason those making that argument seem more often than not fighting to save their AK-47 not their 6 shot 38 revolver. I am not a fan of guns and I don't believe we need them. On the other hand if they aren't taken away, then give everyone a Winchester lever action 30-30; 12 gauge pump-shot gun; and a S&W revolver. You've got the majority of every distance covered (close up, mid range and long range). Much more than that is over kill in my opinion.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I didn't, so what's your point?


Your implication was that any officer who wasn't formerly a Marine can barely handle their handgun. I took it as you were saying those who weren't Marines can't shoot proficiently. If I was wrong in interpreting what you wrote, I apologize.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> It wasn't directed at anyone in particular. It was a generalization towards those who favor the NRA. The consistent argument is that the 2nd Amendment gives each of us the right to own guns. For some reason those making that argument seem more often than not fighting to save their AK-47 not their 6 shot 38 revolver. I am not a fan of guns and I don't believe we need them. On the other hand if they aren't taken away, then give everyone a Winchester lever action 30-30; 12 gauge pump-shot gun; and a S&W revolver. You've got the majority of every distance covered (close up, mid range and long range). Much more than that is over kill in my opinion.


Thanks for clearing up the spurious nature of your argument.

So then, should I toss in things like Di-Fi issuing hand gun permits to her friends while Mayor of San Fran yet placing a moratorium for everyone else? Or Rosie O'Donnell being a ***** to Tom Selleck yet having a body guard that packs while working for her, in an illegal fashion at times even (according to police reports)?

I think this talk has been fairly good for this issue, it usually riles people right up. However, we should still not use counter arguments to justify our position until....that counter argument is actually introduced!

Cheers


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Thanks for clearing up the spurious nature of your argument.
> 
> So then, should I toss in things like Di-Fi issuing hand gun permits to her friends while Mayor of San Fran yet placing a moratorium for everyone else? Or Rosie O'Donnell being a ***** to Tom Selleck yet having a body guard that packs while working for her, in an illegal fashion at times even (according to police reports)?
> 
> ...


Politics are the biggest problem with this debate. We all know that political favors of all sorts are how business is done in government. It doesn't make it right and it surely doesn't make these politicians ethical.

As far as Rosei's bodyguard having a handgun permit, most licensed legitimate bodyguards have permits. As long as they go through the proper "hoops" and show a legitimate need for a permit, I think they should be eligible. Then again, if guns were banned, there would be no need for gun permits =)

Debate is good, it forces us to think about both sides of an issue. I still stand on the side of no guns for anyone. I will agree is some instances having a gun might have prevented a crime from occurring. There may be some of those snobs on the hill who were innocently victimized by thugs doing a home invasion, but as a whole the majority of us have not been invovled in a situation where a gun was necessary.

I don't like the licensing issue because look at the number of <censored> who have driver licenses and can't drive a car. Can you imagine giving them gun permits also?

I also understand that most people wanting to save their guns aren't owners of 50 calibre rifles or AK-47s, but there are some who feel they have the right to own these types of weapons (along with the fully automatic types I refered to out of turn previously) even though they were only designed to kill people.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Fair enough Trend. Politely put.

I agree it would be nice to live in a world where guns are 100% not needed, but then again, in such a world, guns would pose no danger either!

Cheers


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Trenditional said:


> Politics are the biggest problem with this debate. We all know that political favors of all sorts are how business is done in government. It doesn't make it right and it surely doesn't make these politicians ethical.
> 
> As far as Rosei's bodyguard having a handgun permit, most licensed legitimate bodyguards have permits. As long as they go through the proper "hoops" and show a legitimate need for a permit, I think they should be eligible. Then again, if guns were banned, there would be no need for gun permits =)
> 
> ...


To take your argument to its logical conclusion, then one person with a single-shot pistol/rifle/shotgun would rule the world.

If I desire to own any firearm, .50 caliber rifle, AK47, M-16, M2 machine gun, 75mm mountain howitzer, etc., it's my business, not yours, as long as I don't use the weapon to oppress others, or kill them for no good reason.

Thousands of people defend themselves each year against criminal perpetrators. Most do not have to fire a shot; and those are the ones you never see reported.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Trenditional said:


> On the other hand if they aren't taken away, then give everyone a Winchester lever action 30-30; 12 gauge pump-shot gun; and a S&W revolver. You've got the majority of every distance covered (close up, mid range and long range). Much more than that is over kill in my opinion.


Kinda difficult now that Winchester lever-action .30-30s are no longer being made!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> Kinda difficult now that Winchester lever-action .30-30s are no longer being made!




Trenditional, You are still on the right track. IMHO, every American man should know how to operate and own at least one 1911 .45 auto and an M1 or M1A.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Ok ... seriously ... I'm sure you are talking about abortion. However, I don't think anyone on the anti-abortion side questions the sovereignty of a woman over her own body.


That is precisely what they do. Sovereignty, in the classical sense, means that one can do whatever one wants within the borders demarcated as sovereign. Anti-sovereignty folks say that there's something growing inside a woman that she has no right to exercise sovereignty over. Others (and I put myself in this camp) say that if it's not viable to live on its own, it's part of a woman's body and she is perfectly within her rights to handle it as she sees fit. Not that the idea does not make me on some level queasy; it's a decision I'm glad I'll never have to make. But the bottom line is, either one believes that a woman owns her body, or one believes the state has a compelling interest in controlling her body. I'm not saying either position is wrong, but those are the options.



Martinis at 8 said:


> A well armed society is a polite society. Unfortunately, we are not well armed.


Haven't you spent significant time in Africa? Haven't you watched the news from Iraq or Afghanistan? Haven't you compared our rates of violent crime to those in other nations of similar economic development but less ready access to guns? Clearly, your argument does not hold based on the data.



pendennis said:


> Thousands of people defend themselves each year against criminal perpetrators. Most do not have to fire a shot; and those are the ones you never see reported.


Do you have proof of that? I don't doubt that some such cases exist, but I think you severely exaggerate the numbers of them.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

> Do you have proof of that? I don't doubt that some such cases exist, but I think you severely exaggerate the numbers of them.


There was quite a controversy about this in the mid '90s. The estimates I saw at the time ranged from about 108,000 to 2.5 million. The latter number seems wildly high. Of course, that Lott fellow has written several books on the issue. Interestingly, the same law professor/sleuth who blew up Bellesiles' _Arming America_ also found fault with some of Lott's data and methodology. I don't know what the eventual outcome was.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> But the bottom line is, either one believes that a woman owns her body, or one believes the state has a compelling interest in controlling her body. I'm not saying either position is wrong, but those are the options.


No, those are not the options. The child owns his or her body, too.



> law is a process, not a static collection of rules and proscriptions.


A constitution is a static collection of rules, even more so than, say a statute, or a contract. It is not a form of case law. To say that a government has a monopoly on the amendment -- whoops!, the evolution -- of its own chartering document, to the point of (frequently) purporting to empower _itself_ is, quite possibly, one of the dumbest things I have encountered in my brief time on this earth.



> Of course, anyone familar with the Anglo-American system of common law should understand this intutively, but such is often not the case.


Of course, anyone familiar with legal history would see the difference between the various, decentralized, competitive systems of jury-decided law in which the English common law actually developed, particularly in the 13th century, and would know that it bears striking dissimilarity to the process we see today whereby 5 out of 9 appointed functionaries of a centralized, monopolistic body purport to decree sweeping, brand-spanking new rules by fiat. But such is often not the case.


----------



## Tyto (Sep 22, 2004)

Phinn said:


> A constitution is a static collection of rules, even more so than, say a statute, or a contract. It is not a form of case law. To say that a government has a monopoly on the amendment -- whoops!, the evolution -- of its own chartering document, to the point of (frequently) purporting to empower _itself_ is, quite possibly, one of the dumbest things I have encountered in my brief time on this earth.


Ten amendments in the 20th century alone say that the consitution is not simply a static collection of rules. And how doesn't the government have a monopoly on the amendment process? An amendment needs a two-thirds majority in both houses of congress, then ratification by the states. Sure, a constitutional convention could be called, and delegates could be people other than senators and state legislators, but congress would still need to authorize the convention.

I take your meaning regarding the distinction between common-law cases and statutory interpretation cases, and I agree that constitutional questions should not be decided according to common-law principles, but the idea of a "living constitution" isn't necessarily inconsistent with the framers' intent, so long as the constitution "evolves" according to the prescribed process.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

pendennis said:


> In just what do you trust people to handle responsibly? People, unlicensed, abuse drugs, alcohol, automobiles, knives, axes, motorcycles, tools, bungee cords, etc. The list is nearly endless.
> 
> Contrary to your assertion, guns are one of the most regulated industries in the U.S. You can't buy a gun directly from Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Colt, etc. They only sell to federally licensed wholesalers and dealers. No other commodity requires so many layers of regulation. On top of that, most states have a plethora of rules and regulations, with none being common from one state to the next. Very infrequently do misanthropes have to cover any civil liability when they commit a civil infraction. Most states have some type of mandatory jail time when a felony is committed with a firearm, yet these criminal charges are frequently plea-bargained away during the legal process.
> 
> ...


I'll take you word in regards to regulation. I suppose criminals will get guns if they really want them. But, I'm still wary of the level of guns on the street, I still say the streets are flooded. Ask someone from Queens or Bed Sty if its hard to acquire a gun, answer would likely be no. Five guns stolen from officers doesn't account for the 100's of murders in Detroit. The guns are coming from dealers unless the criminals are getting them directly from the factory. They can't be all a result of theft and irresponsible officers. To me this says lack of or ineffective regulation in certain areas of the industry.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JP,

My boyhood borough of Queens is not the violence soaked place you seem to make it. Yes there are some bad parts, but for the most part its home to hard working middle class families. I would wager that the median home value in Queens is probably close to $400,000 as well. More importantly Queens is home to the New York Metropolitan Baseball Club, more commonly known as the Mets.

Leave Queens out of this!

Karl


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> JP,
> 
> My boyhood borough of Queens is not the violence soaked place you seem to make it. Yes there are some bad parts, but for the most part its home to hard working middle class families. I would wager that the median home value in Queens is probably close to $400,000 as well. More importantly Queens is home to the New York Metropolitan Baseball Club, more commonly known as the Mets.
> 
> ...


You are right, being I am usually pretty sensitive about people generalizing cities. Let me be specific. I was speaking of Guy Brewer and those areas. South-side, Lefrak and such.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Ten amendments in the 20th century alone say that the consitution is not simply a static collection of rules. ... The idea of a "living constitution" isn't necessarily inconsistent with the framers' intent, so long as the constitution "evolves" according to the prescribed process.


An amendment to the Constitution by the prescribed voting process is not what the Left means by "living Constitution," and it is not what Lushington meant by pretending that the chartering document of our government is like a set of common law rules.

If the Left's agenda could be implemented by the prescribed voting method of Constitutional amendment, they would not need to rely on the Court's diktats.

The fact that there _is_ a prescribed voting method of Constitutional amendment is further proof that amending the Constitution by other means is improper.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Back to the original topic; I think that the point needs to be made that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the people* from* the government. The ability to protect ones self and property on an individual level are salutary effects but not the real purpose of the amendment. The American thesis of a self-governing populace is predicated on the idea that certain rights which are inherently the citizen's are ceded to the government. The 2nd amendment merely makes explicit that the right to keep and bear arms is not one of those ceded rights. A quick tour through history shows that the rise of despotism entails the supression of the right of an individual to arm himself. For this reason, the 2nd Amendment is IMO fundamental to all of the other amendments since without the risk of potential armed conflict, there is nothing, except the good will of the government, to prevent the government from usurping any other rights it deems desirable.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> Five guns stolen from officers doesn't account for the 100's of murders in Detroit. The guns are coming from dealers unless the criminals are getting them directly from the factory.


There are, perhaps, two or three gun dealers in Detroit proper. I know where two of them are. There are many more in the far north-eastern suburbs, which have a fraction of the crime Detroit does.

I suppose criminals are trekking north to buy their guns, however, it's much more likely that there are traffickers who bring the guns into the city. I know of a house in Grosse Pointe, near the Detroit border, that was raided by marshals, and turned up a large cache of weapons and drugs. Both were beings sold into the nearby Detroit neighborhoods. There are similar raids throughout Detroit quite often.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> I'll take you word in regards to regulation. I suppose criminals will get guns if they really want them. But, I'm still wary of the level of guns on the street, I still say the streets are flooded. Ask someone from Queens or Bed Sty if its hard to acquire a gun, answer would likely be no. Five guns stolen from officers doesn't account for the 100's of murders in Detroit. The guns are coming from dealers unless the criminals are getting them directly from the factory. They can't be all a result of theft and irresponsible officers. To me this says lack of or ineffective regulation in certain areas of the industry.


I did not state that the cause of illegal gun activity was stolen guns from the police. Further, sales from dealers are legal sales. Dealers give up a great deal of freedom just to become a registered firearms dealer. They give up mostly Fourth Amendment rights, as well as several others. Their premises and records can be searched and audited at any time without a search warrant. My example of theft from police just highlights the fact that there is a lot of carelessness by those who are paid not to be careless.

Weapons are stolen all the time from individuals' homes, places of business, etc. They are also stolen by perpertrators who get the upper hand in a confrontation, whether a private citizen or police officer. The hundreds of murders in Detroit are committed with a variety of weapons, including guns, knives, autos, axes, baseball bats, etc., ad infinitum.

It is also not very easy to get a gun illegally, contrary to popular misconception. The problem is that a lot of prosecutors "plea down" illegal gun possession, or even drop the charges in many instances.

Citizens protecting themselves number in the near-hundreds of thousands. Those statistics do not make it to the FBI crime statistics reports, since it is not a crime to defend one's self against an outlaw.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> Kinda difficult now that Winchester lever-action .30-30s are no longer being made!


Thankfully my Grandfather left his for me.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> Kinda difficult now that Winchester lever-action .30-30s are no longer being made!


I think that the discontinuance of production is only temporary. Browning owns the Winchester name, and the Models 94 and 70 will probably be produced again in a different location. Word has it that Browning is waiting for labor contracts to expire so they can move tooling and equipment to another US plant in the Carolinas; perhaps even to Japan, where Browning's are made today.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

pendennis said:


> I think that the discontinuance of production is only temporary. Browning owns the Winchester name, and the Models 94 and 70 will probably be produced again in a different location. Word has it that Browning is waiting for labor contracts to expire so they can move tooling and equipment to another US plant in the Carolinas; perhaps even to Japan, where Browning's are made today.


I had not heard that, not that that means anything. For years it has puzzled me why anyone in this century would buy a lever-action .30-30 carbine for any reason other than nostalgia. I, for one, would be hard put to think of any use for which one might wish to put a rifle for which a .30-30 carbine would be first choice.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> I had not heard that, not that that means anything. For years it has puzzled me why anyone in this century would buy a lever-action .30-30 carbine for any reason other than nostalgia. I, for one, would be hard put to think of any use for which one might wish to put a rifle for which a .30-30 carbine would be first choice.


Agreed. One would be hard pressed to pick a Winchester 94, with a relatively low-powered, round-nosed bullet, when one could get a Browning BLR, or a good quality bolt-action which outperforms the 94 in every category. Heck, I would even go for a used Savage 99 before a Winchester 94. Marlin has been much more innovative with their lever actions. The Marlin guide guns are superb, especially in .45-70 or .444 Marlin.

I still prefer my Ruger 77, in .30-06, with my Leupold 3-9x40 atop it. That rifle is good for almost any soft skin game in the world. I wouldn't try for a Kodiak, lion, or cape buffalo, but it will take anything else.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Yeah, the old '06 is so hard to beat that to my mind it makes discussions of cartridges for big game almost irrelevant. I like to say that it will do just fine on anything that can't trample me into jelly or tear me into little pieces and eat me up. You pretty much said the same thing.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

SGladwell said:


> That is precisely what they do. Sovereignty, in the classical sense, means that one can do whatever one wants within the borders demarcated as sovereign. Anti-sovereignty folks say that there's something growing inside a woman that she has no right to exercise sovereignty over. Others (and I put myself in this camp) say that if it's not viable to live on its own, it's part of a woman's body and she is perfectly within her rights to handle it as she sees fit. Not that the idea does not make me on some level queasy; it's a decision I'm glad I'll never have to make. But the bottom line is, either one believes that a woman owns her body, or one believes the state has a compelling interest in controlling her body. I'm not saying either position is wrong, but those are the options.


Talk about pure murder! Can a one year old take care of it's self? How about a 1 month old? Do you have all you wisdom teeth yet? Maybe you ought to be aborted, because you are not fully developed yet, and that gives somebody the right to abort you. When the tables get turned crimials get honest for a few seconds.



> Haven't you spent significant time in Africa? Haven't you watched the news from Iraq or Afghanistan? Haven't you compared our rates of violent crime to those in other nations of similar economic development but less ready access to guns? Clearly, your argument does not hold based on the data.


How come the US does not have all of these problems? We got just as many guns or even more.



> Do you have proof of that? I don't doubt that some such cases exist, but I think you severely exaggerate the numbers of them.


Do you read police reports? And why have crimes gone down when a city requires everybody own a gun?

So many people here have the delirious delusion that they would be safer if nobody had guns. Who needs a gun to kill you? Your kitchen knives work great. How many tuffs can you fight off and win. A backhoe makes it real easy to bury people (you don't even need to be dead to be buried). The list goes on and on. The gun is only the evener. The government has no right to know if you have a gun- do they know about all your kitchen knives? A country that does not own the people, then the government has no rights.

The Democrats have stolen laws by using the Supreme Court. They have proved they don't want to play fair. They are, by far, more dishonest than the Republicans- big time.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Trenditional said:


> Thankfully my Grandfather left his for me.


You are so fortunate to have that!

Out of my Grandfather's gun collection I was asked to give up one rifle - his 30-30. My Grandfather's brother was killed in Vietnam and my Grandfather had taught this nephew to hunt with that rifle and he requested it.

It was a tough thing to give up because I had also learned to hunt with that rifle, but I felt that he needed it more than me.

I have the rest of his collection and gun-cabinet in my office and there is a nice .308 Remington semi-auto carbine with 4x scope that he had been using for deer later on as his eyes went bad, but it's not quite the same.

This experience led me to splurge on my M1A, as I realized the future importance of my rifle someday.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

WA said:


> Talk about pure murder!


That is your opinion. Other people think that something growing inside someone else that is not viable outside of that spot is not quite a "person" yet. It's a difficult subject (unlike, say, Iraq, which even stupid people have figured out by now we made a huge initial mistake followed by gigantic mistakes of execution) and reasonable people can certainly differ.



WA said:


> How come the US does not have all of these problems? We got just as many guns or even more.


Um, compare our crime statistics to those of any other nation with a similarly high level of economic development, and it's pretty clear that we have quite a large problem with violence.



WA said:


> So many people here have the delirious delusion that they would be safer if nobody had guns. Who needs a gun to kill you?


First, I never said I was against the right to own guns. In fact, I think I even wrote something about, with the much-appreciated counsel of another AAACer, buying one for myself recently. But that "argument" is sheer lunacy. Every other way you mention about killing people - and why is it that right-wingers seem so often to indulge of fantasies of killing people? - is far more personal and requires far more intimate contact than firing off a few rounds from a firearm does.



WA said:


> The Democrats have stolen laws by using the Supreme Court. They have proved they don't want to play fair. They are, by far, more dishonest than the Republicans- big time.


If you want to believe that, fine. The factual record pretty convincingly states otherwise, though.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> JP,
> 
> My boyhood borough of Queens is not the violence soaked place you seem to make it. Yes there are some bad parts, but for the most part its home to hard working middle class families. I would wager that the median home value in Queens is probably close to $400,000 as well. More importantly Queens is home to the New York Metropolitan Baseball Club, more commonly known as the Mets.
> 
> ...


I can say Jackson Heights has changed since I was born. No matter though, I still feel "home" when I'm in NYC.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

SGladwell said:


> Um, compare our crime statistics to those of any other nation with a similarly high level of economic development, and it's pretty clear that we have quite a large problem with violence.


SG,

I think you should review the first thread where this point was brought up, dicussed, and researched at length.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=60314

The facts simply do not support these types of comparisons. I think you will see that the proponents of such statements had no interest in further debate once the research was presented. I would say I was shocked, but you can see the involved parties and would know that I wasn't really. 

That said, I do feel that looking at the raw numbers we do have a large problem no matter what other countries are doing and we should certainly work to solve them. I am not happy being a statistical equivalent with other countries on this issue.

I agree with a lot of your post and particularly that some of the extreme arguments by pro-gunners approach lunacy. I just don't see how any person enjoys personal sovereignty without the means to defend themself even if it is somewhat symbolic at this point in history.

Regards,

KS


----------

