Alright...one more post for the road because I feel it's important.
Some of the posts display a basic ignorance about gun training and capabilities, and for anyone contemplating purchasing a firearm or refining their firearm skills, as mentioned...get the proper training. I agree that just purchasing a firearm might not be good enough in some situations, although certainly is better than having nothing. However, purchasing a firearm combined with proper training is quite a formidable "weapon" for self-defense.
On the comments regarding the ability to grab a gun quickly and use it effectively enough to defend yourself...training and practice needs to be involved with that as well. In my viewpoint, like the same as training involved with the family in the possible event of a fire...training with a firearm should also be involved for the possible event of an intruder, then "you'll know what to do" and your family members will know what to do, and then the chances are excellent that the predicament will turn out favorable for yourself and for your family.
For example, my grandfather taught me as a young boy to never to point a gun at anyone and always presume the gun is loaded. Later on in age when I was ready for it, I learned some self-defense tactics which of course could involve pointing a gun at someone, but only strictly for self-defense purposes. Never, I mean NEVER play around with a gun. Even to this day when cleaning my firearms, even when I know it isn't loaded because I just checked, I still keep the barrel pointed away from me out of habit, and it's a good habit. I have also practiced what I would do in the event of an intruder, and ya know what, I sleep a lot better at night knowing that I don't fear hearing any noises downstairs. Frankly, it's sad to read comments from those who choose to live their lives at the mercy of criminals...whereby if anyone ever broke into my home with bad intentions, they would then be at my mercy, and to me, I prefer it that way.
agree! Brought up by a Dept Chief of Police father. And guns were brought to me at a young age of 6, a 1962 model 22 colt satle rifle was my first. You must be tought on gun control. Enjoyed viewing the coments .
<< <i>Perhaps the worst type of situation for a defendant is a drunk neighbor who really accidentally tries to get into a home because they are drunk and really thinks it is their home >>
Gotta disagree with you there. The worst would be if an overstaffed, overfunded, underworked local police swat team full of macho narcissists with itchy trigger fingers send a box of cocaine to the town mayor via fedex, then bust into his house when he picks up the sealed package from his front door step and brings it in the house, then kills his dog and terrorizes the man and his wife for hours before they even believe he's the mayor.
Really happened a few years ago.
Since the intruders were police, "castle law" likely wouldn't apply in most states. The police do what they want, when they want, and you can theorize about the constitution until you're blue in the face, but when it comes to the practical application of forceful authority in the real world, there's nothing you can do about it, and the police don't have to answer to anybody. >>
That's right,happened here in Prince Georges County in Maryland. They shot TWO dogs (black labs) both of who were retreating and held the Mayor and his mother-in-law. The wife came home after it all went down.The mayor has lawsuits going. The sheriff who sent in the swat team still refuses to apologize and has thus far escaped charges or reprimands. Apparently a local drug dealer was FedExing packages to random houses, then someone would pick it up before the resident of the house.
Is this thread about leaving a negative feedback on ebay for someone and then worrying about the ramifications, possibly deadly, from psychotic ebay people ? Wow. Pretty freaky in itself. Wrong crowd to mess with here. Going away now.
Well, your "right" to bear arms ended in the early 1800s with the dissolution of the militias as a means of national defense, and the formation of a permanent standing army. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the word "militia", you have zero right to bear arms. Read the second amendment. When the militias disappeared, so did your right.
I certainly hope your shotgun was unloaded. It would've been a shame to end the lives of two unarmed juveniles (even inadvertently, if the gun accidentally fired) over a stack of baseball cards. I assume you wouldn't want that on your conscience.
Especially considering you sort of baited them by pretending to be away from the house.
Especially considering you sort of baited them by pretending to be away from the house.
The OP "baited" criminals to break into his house and commit a felony? I'm assuming you're typing that last sentence tongue-in-cheek because that's utterly ridiculous.
Once a person decides to break the law and commit a crime by invading your private space, he/she should be dealt with as quickly and as severely as possible to eliminate the threat, IMO. While I'm glad no one was hurt in this particular case, if you're going to run with the bulls be prepared to get the horns..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>So you're saying the jeweler wouldn't have had a better chance of surviving this horrific incident if he's had a licensed 9mm in a drawer under the counter? >>
He did and it didn't... Roy always had a Ruger beneath the register and a Makarov in the back inside the safe. Your point? >>
Maybe if one of them had been hanging on the wall behind the counter instead of locked in the safe, it could have served as a deterrent.
I still think guns promote the worst kind of savagery, but given that cops are so bad at getting illegal guns off the streets, it only makes sense for people to arm themselves with an equal level of protection. >>
A gun only works if it is in hand AND the person is willing to use it. However, in most cases, the gun ISN'T immediately available or any move to secure it (even if within arms reach) would provoke a shooting. And in home cases, it should be secured . . . again, leading to an issue with being able to immediately access it. Play it out however you want, but being a Monday morning quarterback won't bring Roy back or anyone else killed needlessly by a misused gun. >>
This sums it up perfectly. I am, with few exceptions, 'pro-gun'. I think Americans should have the right to buy and keep firearms. That said, I think very few Americans should exercise that right, since I have zero confidence in the average fat American's ability to pull the trigger at the right time and on the right occasions.
My God, just look at these boards. Most guys on here are just TERRIFIED to leave a negative feedback for somebody. I'd guess the mean age for the last time a CU board member felt a fist in his face is age nine or so. The average American has been completely removed from violence or escalated conflict since the second grade- anyone who thinks these people should be 'packin' is a nuckin fut. >>
Yeah, but in an even confrontation the criminals also panic. I doubt the stress levels would be much different since most crooks also haven't been in a shootout. These criminals obviously panicked--their most rationale choice was to flee and hopefully get away before the police arrive. Doubtful that the OP would have shot them in the back, and the police would have only had twiley's description to go by. Simply put, they froze up.
I skimmed this thread, but I don't think anyone has acknowledged what might have happened if Twiley had been confronted by these two men unarmed. Again, their most intelligent choice would be to leave once they realized someone was home (that's what a professional burglar would do), but that's not very reassuring considering the intelligence level and state of mind of these criminals. If they don't flee, it's a two-on-one physical confrontation where twiley likely loses more than baseball cards.
Yes, if this guy hadn't had a gun, the burglars may have stayed, but the right to bare arms no longer means what it meant when those great men wrote it. It was so our militia could protect us, now that militia is called the National Guard.
Yes, if this guy hadn't had a gun, the burglars may have stayed, but the right to bare arms no longer means what it meant when those great men wrote it. It was so our militia could protect us, now that militia is called the National Guard.
---------------------- Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989 ----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
<< <i>Especially considering you sort of baited them by pretending to be away from the house.
The OP "baited" criminals to break into his house and commit a felony? I'm assuming you're typing that last sentence tongue-in-cheek because that's utterly ridiculous.
Once a person decides to break the law and commit a crime by invading your private space, he/she should be dealt with as quickly and as severely as possible to eliminate the threat, IMO. While I'm glad no one was hurt in this particular case, if you're going to run with the bulls be prepared to get the horns.. >>
Well, let's see.... how could the OP have averted the "need" to point a loaded shotgun at a dumba*s kid's head? Maybe by telling the would-be thieves that he was at home (which he was)? My guess is they eventually they would've given up and quit calling every few months.
And dealing with anyone as "quickly and as severely as possible" simply for an invasion of private space is an excellent way to get people killed unnecessarily, and to find yourself locked up for a very long time.
I know all about McDonald and the Chicago handgun ban. All that did was set the precedent that the S.C.'s misinterpretation can be applied to state law via Due Process. It didn't create any new meaningful dialogue on gun control, nor did it validate the S.C.'s erroneous application of Amend #2 to private gun ownership.
Yeah, maybe they would have given up...I mean it had only been about 6 months over two state lines and repeated attempts...maybe next time give the criminals a year or two to work it of of their system and make sure you never go out in case they decide to stop by
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Yeah, maybe they would have given up...I mean it had only been about 6 months and repeated attempts...maybe next time give the criminals a year or two to work it of of their system and make sure you never go out in case they decide to stop by >>
Couldn't have said it better.... If they had been trying that long I'm sure they would be willing to try longer.
Still give +1 to Twiley for showing them what's up!
<< <i>I certainly hope your shotgun was unloaded. It would've been a shame to end the lives of two unarmed juveniles (even inadvertently, if the gun accidentally fired) over a stack of baseball cards. I assume you wouldn't want that on your conscience.
Especially considering you sort of baited them by pretending to be away from the house. >>
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." ~ Mark Twain
<< <i>Well, your "right" to bear arms ended in the early 1800s with the dissolution of the militias as a means of national defense, and the formation of a permanent standing army. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the word "militia", you have zero right to bear arms. Read the second amendment. When the militias disappeared, so did your right. >>
If I read you right, then your assertion is that the right to bear arms was merely an expedient to give the citizens guns in order to form a militia. Why would such a procedural thing require it to be raised to the level of inclusion in the Bill of Rights, when every other amendment in that collection is designed as a clear statement of the rights that the government could not take away? This fails a simple logic test. The Bill of Rights IS NOT a grant of those rights to the people, it is a brake on the federal government's ability to infringe on those rights.
I always find it funny that some amendments have grown like a living entity (such as the first which now includes groups and business entities), yet the Second Amendment is treated by some as a dead, archaic, static construct.
---------------------- Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989 ----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
Well, your "right" to bear arms ended in the early 1800s with the dissolution of the militias as a means of national defense, and the formation of a permanent standing army. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the word "militia", you have zero right to bear arms. Read the second amendment. When the militias disappeared, so did your right.
>>
Good point. Few people know that the current- and erroneous-- interpretation of the 2nd amendment has only been kicking around for about 30 years. For the 170 years or so prior to that nobody in Washington on either side of the aisle thought the 2nd amendment applied to private citizens.
Well, your "right" to bear arms ended in the early 1800s with the dissolution of the militias as a means of national defense, and the formation of a permanent standing army. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the word "militia", you have zero right to bear arms. Read the second amendment. When the militias disappeared, so did your right.
>>
Good point. Few people know that the current- and erroneous-- interpretation of the 2nd amendment has only been kicking around for about 30 years. For the 170 years or so prior to that nobody in Washington on either side of the aisle thought the 2nd amendment applied to private citizens. >>
Bulsh...
---------------------- Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989 ----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
<< <i>Well, your "right" to bear arms ended in the early 1800s with the dissolution of the militias as a means of national defense, and the formation of a permanent standing army. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the word "militia", you have zero right to bear arms. Read the second amendment. When the militias disappeared, so did your right. >>
If I read you right, then your assertion is that the right to bear arms was merely an expedient to give the citizens guns in order to form a militia. Why would such a procedural thing require it to be raised to the level of inclusion in the Bill of Rights, when every other amendment in that collection is designed as a clear statement of the rights that the government could not take away? This fails a simple logic test. The Bill of Rights IS NOT a grant of those rights to the people, it is a brake on the federal government's ability to infringe on those rights.
I always find it funny that some amendments have grown like a living entity (such as the first which now includes groups and business entities), yet the Second Amendment is treated by some as a dead, archaic, static construct. >>
If you or anyone else want to argue that guns are practical for home defense, then make that argument. But don't argue that you have a Constitutional right to keep an armory in your home, because you don't. And yes, Am #2 was specifically designed for one and only one purpose - for the maintenance of a citizen army. The last part of the amendment - the one the NRA always quotes - is a clause that is dependent upon the first part of the amendment.
The second amendment cannot "grow" or "adapt" or "evolve" because the intent of the framers was very specific. Using the amendment to claim a right to anything other than the establishment of a militia, materially changes the amendment. In my view, the ONLY way citizens can gain the absolute gun rights they think they have now, is to call a Constitutional Convention and write a new amendment that re-words amendment #2 removing the militia language.
Well, your "right" to bear arms ended in the early 1800s with the dissolution of the militias as a means of national defense, and the formation of a permanent standing army. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the word "militia", you have zero right to bear arms. Read the second amendment. When the militias disappeared, so did your right.
>>
Good point. Few people know that the current- and erroneous-- interpretation of the 2nd amendment has only been kicking around for about 30 years. For the 170 years or so prior to that nobody in Washington on either side of the aisle thought the 2nd amendment applied to private citizens. >>
Bulsh... >>
Perhaps I phrased that poorly. What I should have said is that a fair number of constitutional law scholars have argued that the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a fairly new development.
In 1989, Robert Bork even said that the 2nd amendment is designed 'to guarantee the right of states to form militias, not for individuals to bear arms". Former Chief Justice Burger called the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd amendment "one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." Keep in mind that Bork was no hippy liberal, and that Burger was nominated by Nixon in large part because Burger was considered a strict constructionist. The fact is that a lot of very intelligent people who's familiarity with the Constitution exceeds either mine or yours have argued for this point, and to casually dismiss those arguments would be intellectually irresponsible.
<< <i>I certainly hope your shotgun was unloaded. It would've been a shame to end the lives of two unarmed juveniles (even inadvertently, if the gun accidentally fired) over a stack of baseball cards. I assume you wouldn't want that on your conscience.
Especially considering you sort of baited them by pretending to be away from the house. >>
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." ~ Mark Twain >>
"It is better to keep a PSA 8 Eddie Murray rookie than to trade it away for another Murray rookie worth half the value." (author unknown)
Comments
I might have to disagree
But I agree with you overall.
Some of the posts display a basic ignorance about gun training and capabilities, and for anyone contemplating purchasing a firearm or refining their firearm skills, as mentioned...get the proper training. I agree that just purchasing a firearm might not be good enough in some situations, although certainly is better than having nothing. However, purchasing a firearm combined with proper training is quite a formidable "weapon" for self-defense.
On the comments regarding the ability to grab a gun quickly and use it effectively enough to defend yourself...training and practice needs to be involved with that as well. In my viewpoint, like the same as training involved with the family in the possible event of a fire...training with a firearm should also be involved for the possible event of an intruder, then "you'll know what to do" and your family members will know what to do, and then the chances are excellent that the predicament will turn out favorable for yourself and for your family.
For example, my grandfather taught me as a young boy to never to point a gun at anyone and always presume the gun is loaded. Later on in age when I was ready for it, I learned some self-defense tactics which of course could involve pointing a gun at someone, but only strictly for self-defense purposes. Never, I mean NEVER play around with a gun. Even to this day when cleaning my firearms, even when I know it isn't loaded because I just checked, I still keep the barrel pointed away from me out of habit, and it's a good habit. I have also practiced what I would do in the event of an intruder, and ya know what, I sleep a lot better at night knowing that I don't fear hearing any noises downstairs. Frankly, it's sad to read comments from those who choose to live their lives at the mercy of criminals...whereby if anyone ever broke into my home with bad intentions, they would then be at my mercy, and to me, I prefer it that way.
Back to the cards.
Brought up by a Dept Chief of Police father. And guns were brought to me at a young age of 6, a 1962 model 22 colt satle rifle was my first. You must be tought on gun control. Enjoyed viewing the coments .
<< <i>
<< <i>Perhaps the worst type of situation for a defendant is a drunk neighbor who really accidentally tries to get into a home because they are drunk and really thinks it is their home >>
Gotta disagree with you there. The worst would be if an overstaffed, overfunded, underworked local police swat team full of macho narcissists with itchy trigger fingers send a box of cocaine to the town mayor via fedex, then bust into his house when he picks up the sealed package from his front door step and brings it in the house, then kills his dog and terrorizes the man and his wife for hours before they even believe he's the mayor.
Really happened a few years ago.
Since the intruders were police, "castle law" likely wouldn't apply in most states. The police do what they want, when they want, and you can theorize about the constitution until you're blue in the face, but when it comes to the practical application of forceful authority in the real world, there's nothing you can do about it, and the police don't have to answer to anybody. >>
That's right,happened here in Prince Georges County in Maryland. They shot TWO dogs (black labs) both of who were retreating and held the Mayor and his mother-in-law. The wife came home after it all went down.The mayor has lawsuits going. The sheriff who sent in the swat team still refuses to apologize and has thus far escaped charges or reprimands. Apparently a local drug dealer was FedExing packages to random houses, then someone would pick it up before the resident of the house.
<< <i>Bill of rights. >>
Well, your "right" to bear arms ended in the early 1800s with the dissolution of the militias as a means of national defense, and the formation of a permanent standing army. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the word "militia", you have zero right to bear arms. Read the second amendment. When the militias disappeared, so did your right.
I certainly hope your shotgun was unloaded. It would've been a shame to end the lives of two unarmed juveniles (even inadvertently, if the gun accidentally fired) over a stack of baseball cards. I assume you wouldn't want that on your conscience.
Especially considering you sort of baited them by pretending to be away from the house.
The OP "baited" criminals to break into his house and commit a felony? I'm assuming you're typing that last sentence tongue-in-cheek because that's utterly ridiculous.
Once a person decides to break the law and commit a crime by invading your private space, he/she should be dealt with as quickly and as severely as possible to eliminate the threat, IMO. While I'm glad no one was hurt in this particular case, if you're going to run with the bulls be prepared to get the horns..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So you're saying the jeweler wouldn't have had a better chance of surviving this horrific incident if he's had a licensed 9mm in a drawer under the counter? >>
He did and it didn't... Roy always had a Ruger beneath the register and a Makarov in the back inside the safe. Your point? >>
Maybe if one of them had been hanging on the wall behind the counter instead of locked in the safe, it could have served as a deterrent.
I still think guns promote the worst kind of savagery, but given that cops are so bad at getting illegal guns off the streets, it only makes sense for people to arm themselves with an equal level of protection. >>
A gun only works if it is in hand AND the person is willing to use it. However, in most cases, the gun ISN'T immediately available or any move to secure it (even if within arms reach) would provoke a shooting. And in home cases, it should be secured . . . again, leading to an issue with being able to immediately access it. Play it out however you want, but being a Monday morning quarterback won't bring Roy back or anyone else killed needlessly by a misused gun. >>
This sums it up perfectly. I am, with few exceptions, 'pro-gun'. I think Americans should have the right to buy and keep firearms. That said, I think very few Americans should exercise that right, since I have zero confidence in the average fat American's ability to pull the trigger at the right time and on the right occasions.
My God, just look at these boards. Most guys on here are just TERRIFIED to leave a negative feedback for somebody. I'd guess the mean age for the last time a CU board member felt a fist in his face is age nine or so. The average American has been completely removed from violence or escalated conflict since the second grade- anyone who thinks these people should be 'packin' is a nuckin fut. >>
Yeah, but in an even confrontation the criminals also panic. I doubt the stress levels would be much different since most crooks also haven't been in a shootout. These criminals obviously panicked--their most rationale choice was to flee and hopefully get away before the police arrive. Doubtful that the OP would have shot them in the back, and the police would have only had twiley's description to go by. Simply put, they froze up.
I skimmed this thread, but I don't think anyone has acknowledged what might have happened if Twiley had been confronted by these two men unarmed. Again, their most intelligent choice would be to leave once they realized someone was home (that's what a professional burglar would do), but that's not very reassuring considering the intelligence level and state of mind of these criminals. If they don't flee, it's a two-on-one physical confrontation where twiley likely loses more than baseball cards.
Yes, if this guy hadn't had a gun, the burglars may have stayed, but the right to bare arms no longer means what it meant when those great men wrote it. It was so our militia could protect us, now that militia is called the National Guard.
Register for free fan packs
<< <i>Further proof that guns do kill people.
Yes, if this guy hadn't had a gun, the burglars may have stayed, but the right to bare arms no longer means what it meant when those great men wrote it. It was so our militia could protect us, now that militia is called the National Guard.
Register for free fan packs >>
" A mind is a terrible thing"
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
<< <i>Especially considering you sort of baited them by pretending to be away from the house.
The OP "baited" criminals to break into his house and commit a felony? I'm assuming you're typing that last sentence tongue-in-cheek because that's utterly ridiculous.
Once a person decides to break the law and commit a crime by invading your private space, he/she should be dealt with as quickly and as severely as possible to eliminate the threat, IMO. While I'm glad no one was hurt in this particular case, if you're going to run with the bulls be prepared to get the horns.. >>
Well, let's see.... how could the OP have averted the "need" to point a loaded shotgun at a dumba*s kid's head? Maybe by telling the would-be thieves that he was at home (which he was)? My guess is they eventually they would've given up and quit calling every few months.
And dealing with anyone as "quickly and as severely as possible" simply for an invasion of private space is an excellent way to get people killed unnecessarily, and to find yourself locked up for a very long time.
<< <i>I urge you to read Macdonald v Chicago. >>
I know all about McDonald and the Chicago handgun ban. All that did was set the precedent that the S.C.'s misinterpretation can be applied to state law via Due Process. It didn't create any new meaningful dialogue on gun control, nor did it validate the S.C.'s erroneous application of Amend #2 to private gun ownership.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Yeah, maybe they would have given up...I mean it had only been about 6 months and repeated attempts...maybe next time give the criminals a year or two to work it of of their system and make sure you never go out in case they decide to stop by >>
Couldn't have said it better.... If they had been trying that long I'm sure they would be willing to try longer.
Still give +1 to Twiley for showing them what's up!
<< <i>I urge you to read Macdonald v Chicago. >>
is that where the lady burned herself with coffee and got 4 million?
<< <i>I certainly hope your shotgun was unloaded. It would've been a shame to end the lives of two unarmed juveniles (even inadvertently, if the gun accidentally fired) over a stack of baseball cards. I assume you wouldn't want that on your conscience.
Especially considering you sort of baited them by pretending to be away from the house. >>
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." ~ Mark Twain
<< <i>Well, your "right" to bear arms ended in the early 1800s with the dissolution of the militias as a means of national defense, and the formation of a permanent standing army. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the word "militia", you have zero right to bear arms. Read the second amendment. When the militias disappeared, so did your right. >>
If I read you right, then your assertion is that the right to bear arms was merely an expedient to give the citizens guns in order to form a militia. Why would such a procedural thing require it to be raised to the level of inclusion in the Bill of Rights, when every other amendment in that collection is designed as a clear statement of the rights that the government could not take away? This fails a simple logic test. The Bill of Rights IS NOT a grant of those rights to the people, it is a brake on the federal government's ability to infringe on those rights.
I always find it funny that some amendments have grown like a living entity (such as the first which now includes groups and business entities), yet the Second Amendment is treated by some as a dead, archaic, static construct.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
<< <i>
<< <i>Bill of rights. >>
Well, your "right" to bear arms ended in the early 1800s with the dissolution of the militias as a means of national defense, and the formation of a permanent standing army. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the word "militia", you have zero right to bear arms. Read the second amendment. When the militias disappeared, so did your right.
>>
Good point. Few people know that the current- and erroneous-- interpretation of the 2nd amendment has only been kicking around for about 30 years. For the 170 years or so prior to that nobody in Washington on either side of the aisle thought the 2nd amendment applied to private citizens.
<< <i>
<< <i>I urge you to read Macdonald v Chicago. >>
is that where the lady burned herself with coffee and got 4 million?
wait a sec. i'm all switched up here.
i thought Kramer did that at the movies.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Bill of rights. >>
Well, your "right" to bear arms ended in the early 1800s with the dissolution of the militias as a means of national defense, and the formation of a permanent standing army. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the word "militia", you have zero right to bear arms. Read the second amendment. When the militias disappeared, so did your right.
>>
Good point. Few people know that the current- and erroneous-- interpretation of the 2nd amendment has only been kicking around for about 30 years. For the 170 years or so prior to that nobody in Washington on either side of the aisle thought the 2nd amendment applied to private citizens. >>
Bulsh...
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I urge you to read Macdonald v Chicago. >>
is that where the lady burned herself with coffee and got 4 million?
wait a sec. i'm all switched up here.
i thought Kramer did that at the movies. >>
I learned long ago that we're living in bizarro world here on CU.
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, your "right" to bear arms ended in the early 1800s with the dissolution of the militias as a means of national defense, and the formation of a permanent standing army. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the word "militia", you have zero right to bear arms. Read the second amendment. When the militias disappeared, so did your right. >>
If I read you right, then your assertion is that the right to bear arms was merely an expedient to give the citizens guns in order to form a militia. Why would such a procedural thing require it to be raised to the level of inclusion in the Bill of Rights, when every other amendment in that collection is designed as a clear statement of the rights that the government could not take away? This fails a simple logic test. The Bill of Rights IS NOT a grant of those rights to the people, it is a brake on the federal government's ability to infringe on those rights.
I always find it funny that some amendments have grown like a living entity (such as the first which now includes groups and business entities), yet the Second Amendment is treated by some as a dead, archaic, static construct. >>
If you or anyone else want to argue that guns are practical for home defense, then make that argument. But don't argue that you have a Constitutional right to keep an armory in your home, because you don't. And yes, Am #2 was specifically designed for one and only one purpose - for the maintenance of a citizen army. The last part of the amendment - the one the NRA always quotes - is a clause that is dependent upon the first part of the amendment.
The second amendment cannot "grow" or "adapt" or "evolve" because the intent of the framers was very specific. Using the amendment to claim a right to anything other than the establishment of a militia, materially changes the amendment. In my view, the ONLY way citizens can gain the absolute gun rights they think they have now, is to call a Constitutional Convention and write a new amendment that re-words amendment #2 removing the militia language.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Bill of rights. >>
Well, your "right" to bear arms ended in the early 1800s with the dissolution of the militias as a means of national defense, and the formation of a permanent standing army. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the word "militia", you have zero right to bear arms. Read the second amendment. When the militias disappeared, so did your right.
>>
Good point. Few people know that the current- and erroneous-- interpretation of the 2nd amendment has only been kicking around for about 30 years. For the 170 years or so prior to that nobody in Washington on either side of the aisle thought the 2nd amendment applied to private citizens. >>
Bulsh... >>
Perhaps I phrased that poorly. What I should have said is that a fair number of constitutional law scholars have argued that the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a fairly new development.
In 1989, Robert Bork even said that the 2nd amendment is designed 'to guarantee the right of states to form militias, not for individuals to bear arms". Former Chief Justice Burger called the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd amendment "one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." Keep in mind that Bork was no hippy liberal, and that Burger was nominated by Nixon in large part because Burger was considered a strict constructionist. The fact is that a lot of very intelligent people who's familiarity with the Constitution exceeds either mine or yours have argued for this point, and to casually dismiss those arguments would be intellectually irresponsible.
<< <i>
<< <i>I certainly hope your shotgun was unloaded. It would've been a shame to end the lives of two unarmed juveniles (even inadvertently, if the gun accidentally fired) over a stack of baseball cards. I assume you wouldn't want that on your conscience.
Especially considering you sort of baited them by pretending to be away from the house. >>
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." ~ Mark Twain >>
"It is better to keep a PSA 8 Eddie Murray rookie than to trade it away for another Murray rookie worth half the value." (author unknown)
<< <i>
<< <i>"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." ~ Mark Twain >>
"It is better to keep a PSA 8 Eddie Murray rookie than to trade it away for another Murray rookie worth half the value." (author unknown) >>
Do you think this one could get bumped to gem mint 10 if I send it in for review?