Your question was: "Where does all of this 'history' talk come from, btw?"
I stated: Our government is trending toward a more controlled and more intrusive form of government daily. This includes the media, which can't be considered a "free press" by any stretch of the imagination. The "history" part comes in when you consider what usually happens whenever a controlling government disarms the public.
We already have people in this government who follow Mao's philosophies and methods, and even quote him occasionally, but not in a negative way but in admiration. Mao holds the world record of killing the most of his own citizens (50 million to 60 million during the "cultural revolution") after they were disarmed. This doesn't phase Hillary Clinton, Van Jones or Vallerie Jarrett. It's a source of derision for Obama that people in the middle of the country "cling to their guns and religion". A source of ridicule. If you want to "understand" our culture, you might start with that.
To which, you responded: " you're way off base on the Mao bit - step away from the talk radio." I'm not sure which 'facts' I'm 'ignoring' here, or why an argument for public safety means that I'm somehow 'against' what the USA stands for.
So if you choose to google it, you should educate yourself with the facts. To ignore the facts of this issue is to truly do a disservice to yourself and everyone else who reads and believes what you are saying. I am NOT off base about Mao, or Stalin, or the other despots on this list, to wit:
And I knew that you would say: "why an argument for public safety means that I'm somehow 'against' what the USA stands for."
1) It's not a public safety question. It's a control issue, and it's only about controlling the people that you disagree with, not about the criminals. Why is that? You are attempting to marginalize gun rights, which is why you throw out a red herring on every issue you debate. You have an agenda, and it focuses on restricting other people who also happen to be law-abiding and stand-up people.
If criminal background checks are important, they are only nominally so. Do you agree that criminals are not going to submit to background checks? Or are you in complete denial of that basic detail? That being the case, all background checks serve to do is to hassle normal people and to generate fees for more bureaucrats.
We have serious problems with immigration, money laundering, market manipulation, gun running, and gang violence. Much of that is ignored or even perpetrated by our federal government. Law abiding citizens aren't the problem here. To intimate that they are the problem is catastrophically misguided and wrong.
I stand by my assertion. This bias has been promoted for the past 50 years actively. Every edifice and cultural tradition of the US that was won with blood and devotion has been attacked in both innocuous ways and outright for years. You're obviously a product of that thinking.
We simply won't ever agree in our thinking, miklia. What makes us different, is that I recognize your rights, but you don't recognize mine.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>We have serious problems with immigration, money laundering, market manipulation, gun running, and gang violence. Much of that is ignored or even perpetrated by our federal government. Law abiding citizens aren't the problem here. To intimate that they are the problem is catastrophically misguided and wrong. >>
it's a common debating tactic to sensationalize and hyperbolize what someone might rationally be saying and take the polar opposite to the extreme
In this case, "Possibly, we ought to make it a little more difficult to get high-powered guns" becomes "They're trampling all the rights of law abiding citizens!"
Similarly, "perhaps precious metals have had several good years, and one might reconsider having most of their money in them at this time" becomes, "So you love fiat money and all your assets are in dollars, good luck with that!"
"Maybe the world is not ending immediately and maybe not everyone is a crook" causes some to say, "So everything is perfect in your dreamland with rainbows and unicorns!?!"
and so on (not singling out anyone in particular, just making general observations)
I will respond specifically to, Every edifice and cultural tradition of the US that was won with blood and devotion has been attacked in both innocuous ways and outright for years.
Apologies for the lack of clarity - I'm well aware of the horrific atrocities that Mao committed. I was referring to your insinuation that there is a mainstream (or really any) politician in the USA today that somehow supports Mao or his policies. There is not.
Ever gone over the speed limit, jmski? Then you're by definition not a law-abiding citizen either. And nor does committing a sole crime necessarily make one a 'criminal' for life. That's the problem with trying to live in a black and white world - the whole freaking thing is actually gray.
But we do agree one one thing at least - something needs to be done! That's the first step to progress, and middle grounds can always be found. Thanks again for the engagement.
miklia, Can you explain to me, why, I, as a retired person, never accused of a crime, should be impinged, impeded, restricted, or disarmed of my ability to protect myself as a result of the actions of others?
drwstr, let's try the other way on this: what sort and level of weaponry do you feel you need to be safe and protected? Is there anything in the current legislation that prevents that level of safety? I don't think that there is, and nor have I suggested (I believe) anything that would do so.
For all (then really, let's go PM before the entire internets implode), I completely understand the rationale for asking the question that drwstr asked, I really do. Nobody likes to feel punished for being the one not breaking the law, be it wrt taxes, guns, or anything else. However, this approach requires us to ignore one very difficult aspect of human nature - sometimes heretofore 'law abiding people' just snap. Happens in every society since time immemorial, and there's quite a few recent examples that could be drawn upon. These minor restrictions are aimed at preventing what might be a low-level tragedy (a couple of people killed from guns that were purchased for protection) from becoming a slaughter (dozens killed from stockpiled arsenals of certain guns). It's an issue of scale, not about access.
Still curious why, if the federal government's goal is to reduce gun crimes, than why has there been a multi-year decline in the number of federal gun crime prosecutions? You'd think if they were really wanting to take criminals off the streets they would prosecute them at least at the same level instead of letting more walk. Again, I ask what is the point in creating more gun laws when we are slacking on enforcing the ones we have on the books?
Ever gone over the speed limit, jmski? Then you're by definition not a law-abiding citizen either. And nor does committing a sole crime necessarily make one a 'criminal' for life. That's the problem with trying to live in a black and white world - the whole freaking thing is actually gray.
The question was about background checks in order to buy a gun. You didn't answer or respond to my points that criminals are not about to start signing up for background checks in order to buy a gun. It's not about normal people who might "snap". It's about people who obtain guns with the intent to commit heinous crimes, whether it's to hold up a convenience store or to strongarm the opposition in a drug deal. Or to shoot up the cops with an illegally-obtained weapon after doing some nasty act, like say setting off bombs at the Boston Marathon, or something like that.
These minor restrictions are aimed at preventing what might be a low-level tragedy (a couple of people killed from guns that were purchased for protection) from becoming a slaughter (dozens killed from stockpiled arsenals of certain guns).
And if there are more than one perp who decide to break into your house, are you fine with a mag that only holds 7 rounds?
Miklia, it's all additive. Every restriction adds to the body of restrictions. You think it's insignicant. I think it's monumentally important. We disagree 180 degrees.
And again, if a crazy or malevolent personality decides that he's gonna do something horrible, he's gonna do it. Your ill-advised ideas will impede, not help in stopping him.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Every edifice and cultural tradition of the US that was won with blood and devotion has been attacked in both innocuous ways and outright for years.
with, isn't that a little extreme?
Nope. It's not extreme. Next question. >>
Ok, everything about the country is being attacked. check.
next question is: what Rights do you Not have now that you did have before? be specific if possible. follow up question: which specific rights are threatened?
I ask these as a gun owner, and someone who does not feel that my rights (gun or otherwise) are restricted in any way by current laws, nor any proposed legislation that has any chance of passing. What is it you want to be able to do, and want everyone else to be able to do, that we cannot do, or that we can do and is threatened?
serious inquiry, you seem very very concerned and I'm sincerely trying to understand what is so controlled and intrusive in people's lives, and the SPECIFIC liberties lost
<< <i>Apologies for the lack of clarity - I'm well aware of the horrific atrocities that Mao committed. I was referring to your insinuation that there is a mainstream (or really any) politician in the USA today that somehow supports Mao or his policies. There is not.
Ever gone over the speed limit, jmski? Then you're by definition not a law-abiding citizen either. And nor does committing a sole crime necessarily make one a 'criminal' for life. That's the problem with trying to live in a black and white world - the whole freaking thing is actually gray.
But we do agree one one thing at least - something needs to be done! That's the first step to progress, and middle grounds can always be found. Thanks again for the engagement. >>
Miklia - I am actually enjoying this banter quite a bit. Here is the flaw in your argument above. Where does it talk about speed limits in the constitution? That is the difference. The right to keep and bear arms is addressed in the constitution. Speed limits are not a constitutional right. I understand the point you are trying to make but I believe you are missing the point. I am sure you can drum up an argument that speed limits are somehow tied to the Federal Governments constitutional rights but I really think that is a stretch If the constitution stated that it is the right of all citizens to drive whatever speed they wanted but the Federal Government stepped in and said they were going to pass a law where everyone had to drive under 70 miles per hour, that would be unconstitutional. The Supreme court should uphold what the constition states and rule that law as unconstitutional. Can't you see the similarity with the issue of gun control? The Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with the definition of the right to keep and bear arms. Why then is it o.k. for the Federal Government to just change the laws based on its political views? Shouldn't we either amend the constitution or leave that right alone? The problem is that the current administration knows they can't amend the constitution on this issue so they choose to chip away at the issue incrementally and with executive orders.
<< <i>Apologies for the lack of clarity - I'm well aware of the horrific atrocities that Mao committed. I was referring to your insinuation that there is a mainstream (or really any) politician in the USA today that somehow supports Mao or his policies. There is not.
Ever gone over the speed limit, jmski? Then you're by definition not a law-abiding citizen either. And nor does committing a sole crime necessarily make one a 'criminal' for life. That's the problem with trying to live in a black and white world - the whole freaking thing is actually gray.
But we do agree one one thing at least - something needs to be done! That's the first step to progress, and middle grounds can always be found. Thanks again for the engagement. >>
Miklia - I am actually enjoying this banter quite a bit. Here is the flaw in your argument above. Where does it talk about speed limits in the constitution? That is the difference. The right to keep and bear arms is addressed in the constitution. Speed limits are not a constitutional right. I understand the point you are trying to make but I believe you are missing the point. I am sure you can drum up an argument that speed limits are somehow tied to the Federal Governments constitutional rights but I really think that is a stretch If the constitution stated that it is the right of all citizens to drive whatever speed they wanted but the Federal Government stepped in and said they were going to pass a law where everyone had to drive under 70 miles per hour, that would be unconstitutional. The Supreme court should uphold what the constition states and rule that law as unconstitutional. Can't you see the similarity with the issue of gun control? The Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with the definition of the right to keep and bear arms. Why then is it o.k. for the Federal Government to just change the laws based on its political views? Shouldn't we either amend the constitution or leave that right alone? The problem is that the current administration knows they can't amend the constitution on this issue so they choose to chip away at the issue incrementally and with executive orders.
As I would say in chess, "Check" >>
The first amendment was written in the 1700's. Let's ignore the bit about the "well-regulated militia" and focus on "arms"
Well, a bazooka or a nuclear missile is an "arm", isn't it? does the first amendment let everybody have some of those? It doesn't say "small arms" but when written, it meant a single-shot flintlock or musket, but the founding fathers probably did not mean heavy cannon (nor could they have foreseen the need to specify)
<< <i>And if there are more than one perp who decide to break into your house, are you fine with a mag that only holds 7 rounds? >>
Yep, I spend enough time at the range to be comfortable with that. >>
Funny, most law enforcement officers I know have sidearms w/ mags that carry 15+ rounds and I am 100% positive they see a lot more range time than you do!
Well, Baley - another good 45 minutes wasted when I should have been working. My response is well-thought out and written, but I can't post it because I'm not ready to be banned for being frank and honest.
That in itself should give you a clue about what rights we still have, and don't have. As I do think that misrepresentations and red herrings ought to be confronted, I also think that such commentaries should relate to the general forum format.
So, I'm backing off the debate a bit.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i> It doesn't say "small arms" but when written, it meant a single-shot flintlock or musket, but the founding fathers probably did not mean heavy cannon (nor could they have foreseen the need to specify) >>
Actually, someone owned the cannons and it wasn't the government. Not back then anyways! They did exist and each was under the control of one person. Generally the guy that shot it!
Yes, single-shot flintlock or musket were the "common" arm at the time as was the goose quill, ink and hemp paper. But, as technology grew, so did the common use of 15 to 30 rounds mags, semi-auto rifles, TV, radio, internet, and cellphone. Now, all these items are common and protected under the Bill of Rights.
A nuke on the other hand is NOT common and therefore, is not protected. You cantry to get a permit for it, along with a bazooka and even a fully automatic Tommy-gun. However, I would bet you would be denied permits for the first two though some have been able to get a permit for a bazooka.
Some a side note, has anyone used SILVER tips on Zombies or should we just keep our silver stacked!
<< <i>Some a side note, has anyone used SILVER tips on Zombies or should we just keep our silver stacked! >>
Save your silver bullets for werewolves.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>And if there are more than one perp who decide to break into your house, are you fine with a mag that only holds 7 rounds? >>
Yep, I spend enough time at the range to be comfortable with that. >>
Funny, most law enforcement officers I know have sidearms w/ mags that carry 15+ rounds and I am 100% positive they see a lot more range time than you do! >>
I bet most LEOs see way less time at the range than the average enthusiast does. Once a month if most are even THAT frequent.
The first amendment was written in the 1700's. Let's ignore the bit about the "well-regulated militia" and focus on "arms"
Well, a bazooka or a nuclear missile is an "arm", isn't it? does the first amendment let everybody have some of those? It doesn't say "small arms" but when written, it meant a single-shot flintlock or musket, but the founding fathers probably did not mean heavy cannon (nor could they have foreseen the need to specify) >>
So does that mean too that if you have an emergency that you should saddle your horse and go find the nearest constable or physician since telephones and cell phones didn't exist back then?
If you elect enough of the right people you could well own a bazooka or LAWS rocket launcher. If you elect enough of the right people, you could well be prevented from owning any firearm. Luckily we have enough of a balance so that neither extreme prevails.
OK - last point. on speeding hch, I was merely refuting jmski's belief that we can somehow divide up the 'law-abiding' from the 'criminals' to make everything ok. I was not referring to the constitutional right to speed relating to the right to bear arms. Had I used speed limits in ref: to guns, I would have had a big problem with that too. Thanks for clarifying that. For those who want a great (but disturbing) read on the fallibility of human nature and the ability of ordinary men to commit atrocities from circumstance, this book is fascinating, and I've seen similar dynamics repeated many other places in the world.
<< <i>As for the definition of "arms", I will leave that up to the Supreme Court to decide.
Good point Baley. >>
+1000 to Baley's comment. Although, I am fairly confident that if the makeup of the supreme court was currently 5-4 the other way, very, very few people here would be so willing to let the Court decide.
And thanks a lot Dr. Buster, now I want to go cannon shopping. That sounds awesome.
This strikes me as a cultural (rural v urban) divide, much more than a political or philosophical one.
It makes an enormous diffenence, I think, if you grow up in a culture where guns are regarded as a constructive, routine, pervasive and a prominently recreational part of your family and community life, and where their use is introduce with insistent rules and worthy respect as to their use and handling, emphasizing safety and supervised training, much like horses used to be, farm equipment has always been, etc. Yes, the occasional accident or misuse occurs, but this is commonly regarded as rare, as object lessons about inadequate care, caution/respect or training, or as part of human existence where irrationality invariably erupts, rather like the viscissitudes of nature itself (tornados, droughts).
Consider the difference of an urban scene, with its component of rootlessness and anonymity, where guns by contrast are the far more prominent and common tool of lawlessness, intimidation and deliberate violence.
Is it any wonder that atitudes about guns would be so different among people living in such environments?
It's why I've been concerned about blanket Federal impositions about such matters.
While I do think that the 2nd Amendment assures the right of individuals to bear arms and that no laws can Constitutionally prevent it, it does seem to me that localities have the right to experiment with self-governing rules about their use. One can obviously argue the merits and efficacy of D.C.'s attempt some while ago (struck down by the courts) to require that some firearms in personal possession be disassembled when not in use, but IMO the people of D.C. should have the right to address their local problem through law and ordinance short of an outright ban. Sheriffs in the old westerns had guys park their guns at the sheriff's office while they were in town, or turn them over to the barkeep while they were in the saloon. A university president should have the right to ban guns from their campus, just like they ban hotplates from dorm rooms. A church's pastor and congregation should have the right to ban guns from the premises (or not), free of coercion from some Federal or court-imposed dictate.
At issue is both individual freedom and the capacity of a self-governing locale to manage their communal quality of life. We justifiably complain of Federal and court intrusions on matters such as prayers at football game. We should also complain about Federal and court intrusions on the ability of local communities and institutions to try managing the gun phenomenon, short of violating the Constitutional guarantee of possession.
jmski's belief that we can somehow divide up the 'law-abiding' from the 'criminals' to make everything ok.
Excuse me, I said nothing of the sort. Criminals define themselves by their own actions. Criminals who have the intention of using weapons for ill purposes will not submit to any attempt to deter them, and they certainly won't voluntarily submit to background checks for the purpose of procuring a firearm.
miklia chooses to never acknowledge the basic facts of the matter, and continues to toss out red herrings that don't relate to the core issues. Carry on.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
dpoole, I believe you are right about the urban vs. rural attitude regarding guns. Having been raised in a rural area round guns all my life, I was taught not only respect for the firearm but people in general. We use to take guns to school all the time because we hunted right after we got out of school BUT we never, ever thought about using a gun against another person, even the bully that just got done beating me up!!
Now, to comment on another part of your post:
<< <i>While I do think that the 2nd Amendment assures the right of individuals to bear arms and that no laws can Constitutionally prevent it, it does seem to me that localities have the right to experiment with self-governing rules about their use. >>
Do you feel the same way about all the amendments in the Bill of Rights? Should local government agencies have self-governing rules regarding say, freedom of speech, search and seizure, right to an attorney, etc.???? Remember, the Bill of Rights grants its powers to the people, not the government.
<< <i>Do you feel the same way about all the amendments in the Bill of Rights? Should local government agencies have self-governing rules regarding say, freedom of speech, search and seizure, right to an attorney, etc.???? Remember, the Bill of Rights grants its powers to the people, not the government. >>
I firmly agree that the rights and powers of government are enumerated in the Constitution, and that individual latitude and freedom are the default and premise of the document and (ideally) of its interpretation.
I have considered it at least a potential Constitutional crisis when the Federal government has expanded its role in the lives of individuals through reinterpretations of the Consitution beyond its founding verbiage and intent, not that the outcome of such expansion is always undesireable (e.g., civil rights), but that such activity is a slippery slope, and encourages those with disastifactions to turn to courts for imposition of social, political and economic change, rather than to discussion, debate and local legislative decisions with regard to implementing such changes.
Civil rights and the phenomenon/aftermatch of slavery constituted a Constitutional crisis from its inception and IMO could not have been eradicated and addressed without doing some violence to Constitutional principles.
Otherwise, though, I do think that matters such as prayer in school, abortion, gay marriage etc., should be left to the evolving attitudes of people and to their ability to convince one another of change through the power of persuasion and self-determined legislation. Real and perceived injustices are undoubtedly addressed and remedied more slowly and less efficiently by such a system, but this was the system that the Founders in balance recognized was most likely to preserve participatory self-governance and individual freedom over the long term.
So, yes. While the Courts stand as a bulwark against over-zealous legislative restraints on individual freedoms, and while systemic checks and balances have been an absolutely vital aspect of our governing system, I do lean in favor of allowing local communities latitude to experiment with the practical implementation of Constitutional principles, such as how the right of individuals to bear arms should be locally managed.
Maybe I'm more stupid than I think....but I perceive that there is no or very little concern for citizen safety with these proposed restrictions. I get the distinct felling it is to protect law enforcement in order to limit and minimize opposition. Why else would this legislation effect the law-abiding too?
<< <i>So, yes. While the Courts stand as a bulwark against over-zealous legislative restraints on individual freedoms, and while systemic checks and balances have been an absolutely vital aspect of our governing system, I do lean in favor of allowing local communities latitude to experiment with the practical implementation of Constitutional principles, such as how the right of individuals to bear arms should be locally managed. >>
"...shall not be infringed"
edited to add:
The Bill of Rights, more specifically, the 2nd Ammendment, is not a "Constitutional principle." It is a right. Rights do not need to be implemented. They need to be recognized and respected.
Don't let BO's BS make you think law enforcement is in agreement with it. Maybe the urban law enforcement are currently but the rural are not! Not in my area anyways. Frankly, I believe once the citizen's guns are gone, the law enforcement will be next. We will be just like the UK and only special police will actually be armed. The rest will be just "Bobbies" with their club!
I don't think that immediately after the gun rights go down we do, but we start to lose ground on every choice thereafter. Sheep get herded. Its the principle of freedom to hold onto. Although, as the government keeps growing and the individual keeps becoming less important, hasn't it already started...
Well thought out response dpoole. So basically you are stating that I could move to a place that has gun laws that I like or I would need to get active to change the current laws where I live if I don't like them. So what happens when I travel around the country? Do I lose my rights because of the state that I am in?
My problem with this line of thinking is that the constitution gives me the right to bear arms in any state, city or local community. It is a constitutional right that can't be trampled on by the states or any local government. I don't even think it is constitutional that they try to limit me at church, school or any other place.
In terms of what "arms" means. I honestly believe it was meant for side arms and fire arms as it was written. This would not include bombs or cannons or weapons of mass destruction but would include knives, clubs, guns, etc.... (this is based on the little research I have done on this topic).
The Bill of Rights, more specifically, the 2nd Ammendment, is not a "Constitutional principle." It is a right. Rights do not need to be implemented. They need to be recognized and respected.
I totally disagree. The second amendment is the same as every other statement in the constitution; it is simply a foundational statement that is used to build our system of laws. And, that's why this debate is so difficult. Some people view their right to bear arms as if it is some type of religious right. It isn't.
I live in Massachusetts. I had lunch today with a friend who lives in Watertown, where there was a shoot-out with the police and 200 rounds were fired. Watertown is a nice, working-class suburb, but people could actually hear the gun-shots. My friend's daughters are afraid to go to school. It's a horrible situation and the people around here do not have a lot of patience for statements indicating that a 19 year old kid has a God-given right to own an arsenal of weapons so that he can use his weapons to manifest his personal political beliefs.
The second amendment is the same as every other statement in the constitution; it is simply a foundational statement that is used to build our system of laws.
It's a foundational right, not a foundational statement and if the country wants to eliminate it or any of the other Amendments, there is a legal way to do that instead of trying to legislate around it.
I live in Massachusetts. I had lunch today with a friend who lives in Watertown, where there was a shoot-out with the police and 200 rounds were fired. Watertown is a nice, working-class suburb, but people could actually hear the gun-shots. My friend's daughters are afraid to go to school. It's a horrible situation and the people around here do not have a lot of patience for statements indicating that a 19 year old kid has a God-given right to own an arsenal of weapons so that he can use his weapons to manifest his personal political beliefs.
Neither of them were legal gun owners, nor can you associate them with legal gun owners in any way. This isn't about legal guns. This isn't about political beliefs. This is about islamic terrorism and anti-American sentiment, and if all those Feds and security details clustered all around the Boston Marathon couldn't even sniff this out in advance, there's no way some moronic background check of legal gun owners would have made any difference in this Watertown episode either.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>The Bill of Rights, more specifically, the 2nd Ammendment, is not a "Constitutional principle." It is a right. Rights do not need to be implemented. They need to be recognized and respected.
I totally disagree. The second amendment is the same as every other statement in the constitution; it is simply a foundational statement that is used to build our system of laws. And, that's why this debate is so difficult. Some people view their right to bear arms as if it is some type of religious right. It isn't.
I live in Massachusetts. I had lunch today with a friend who lives in Watertown, where there was a shoot-out with the police and 200 rounds were fired. Watertown is a nice, working-class suburb, but people could actually hear the gun-shots. My friend's daughters are afraid to go to school. It's a horrible situation and the people around here do not have a lot of patience for statements indicating that a 19 year old kid has a God-given right to own an arsenal of weapons so that he can use his weapons to manifest his personal political beliefs. >>
Well, I think you're totally wrong about the Bill of Rights. These are rights that have been endowed by our Creator. They are not granted to us from the government.
It's a terrible situation that occured in Boston. However, people have the right to bear arms. That is a right. They do not have the right to commit jihad. You need to seperate the instrument from the abuser. A gun, like a camera, is just an instrument. A person can use either one for good. In some instances a person with evil intentions, we call these people criminals, can use them to commit horrible crimes like murder, or in the case of a camera - using it to take pronographic pictures of children.
So yeah, we, as American citizens, have the right to bear arms. And that right shall not be infringed.
<< <i>So yeah, we, as American citizens, have the right to bear arms. And that right shall not be infringed. >>
Big difference between bearing "arms" vs. ginormous magazines and semi-auto weapons of mass destruction.
Nobody needs more than six rounds. Anything beyond that is asking for trouble. And nobody with a history of alcoholism and/or depression should be allowed to own a gun. Most gun deaths are suicides.
<< <i>So yeah, we, as American citizens, have the right to bear arms. And that right shall not be infringed. >>
Big difference between bearing "arms" vs. ginormous magazines and semi-auto weapons of mass destruction.
Nobody needs more than six rounds. Anything beyond that is asking for trouble. And nobody with a history of alcoholism and/or depression should be allowed to own a gun. Most gun deaths are suicides. >>
I disagree. The Founders decided to call it "The Bill of Rights." They did not call it "The Bill of Needs" or "The Bill of Wants." Who are you, or anyone for that matter, to decide how much armament I should have to protect myself or my property?
And by the way, Ted Kennedy's automobile of mass destruction has killed more people than my semi-automatic pistol.
When our actions infringe others' rights the law enters. Our society has a TON of laws and precedents which limit the scope of freedom to protect us from ourselves.
For example: free speech is our right, but hate speech and slander are illegal.
Personal side arms are our right to bear, but semi-auto WMDs should be banned.
And let's stay on topic and not mix apples with oranges... I'm all about driving sober
<< <i>When our actions infringe others' rights the law enters. Our society has a TON of laws and precedents which limit the scope of freedom to protect us from ourselves.
For example: free speech is our right, but hate speech and slander are illegal.
Personal side arms are our right to bear, but semi-auto WMDs should be banned.
And let's stay on topic and not mix apples with oranges... I'm all about driving sober >>
Please explain why my 9mm semi-auto Beretta of peace and tranquility should be banned as a WMD?
I'm not mixing apples and oranges here. If a semi-auto pistol is a WMD, then you're of course willing to conceed that Sadaam Hussein did indeed have WMD's then too, right? I suppose we should figure out exactly what you mean by WMD.
Wow you are so confused. Guns are the apples, and drunk driving (Ted Kennedy? really?) are the oranges.
Now regarding your Beretta… As you know, semi-automatics can fire more rounds (faster?) than regular pistolás. Therefore in the hands of a bad meanie person, they can cause much more damage. Also, from the perspective of police and security guards, it's much easier to stop a shooter *quickly* if they have to reload more often. This is fact not opinion. More victims would survive attacks if the shooters were using regular guns.
"WMD" is just a fun figure of speech it's not meant literally. Obviously there's a big difference between a nuclear bomb and your 9mm. That said, if a semi-automatic increases the death toll from 1 to 10, or 10 to 100 (an exponential factor) then I'd say that counts as mass destruction.
It's much easier to stop a shooter if someone shoots back. And at the risk of sounding repetitive, a criminal or a terrorist isn't going to care one iota whether or not you limit the magazine capacity, limit the caliber, ban pistol grips, ban semi-autos, restrict collapsible stocks, restrict the sale of ammo, or even ban every type of firearm altogether.
<<A criminal or a terrorist isn't going to bother with any gun applications or background checks.>>
What is it about that simple fact that gun-haters don't understand?
Emotional responses by (well-intentioned) liberals to every conceivable wrong, injustice, fear, inequity or danger - is what causes more problems in the first place. Their big government creation is the biggest problem we face. Nobody except the shooter or the b*mber is responsible for his own actions, regardless of how liberals would like to place the blame elsewhere. Until we all lay the blame where it belongs, nothing is going to be resolved.
The problem with ***reality*** is that you can't simply wave a magic wand and make it so. A hostile ideology isn't going to go away, nor is the criminal mentality going to back off, if we would simply ban guns, or their components. It's just not so, and hoping that it might be so won't make it so. The solution to criminal action and terrorist action is for people to stand up and defend themselves, and to do it very well.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
1 word=control.........The US government is trying to systematically remove your rights in an effort to control the masses.........They believe they are better at running your lives than you are!..........they have learned thru the years that it is easier to control those who follow laws than those that do not.............IF they concentrated their efforts in going against law breakers instead of taking rights from those that follow laws this world would be a better place........Criminals do not apply for background checks.............Criminals do not check the yes box when asked if they have weapons..........People with mental difficulties do not automatically stand up and shout about their insanity.........IF you believe that a government agent or police officer can be your watchdog then you favor gun bans............IF you know that they cannot then you favor freedom to choose............Your rights...........NOW keeping this PM related Question?
During the time where everyone is stacking or hoarding waiting for the collapse......who are you going to sell your hoard or stack to if everyone else has no money.........and when you sell would you take worthless dollars in trade?....or would you be using your hoard or stack to purchase items you need?
<< <i>Wow you are so confused. Guns are the apples, and drunk driving (Ted Kennedy? really?) are the oranges.
Now regarding your Beretta… As you know, semi-automatics can fire more rounds (faster?) than regular pistolás. Therefore in the hands of a bad meanie person, they can cause much more damage. Also, from the perspective of police and security guards, it's much easier to stop a shooter *quickly* if they have to reload more often. This is fact not opinion. More victims would survive attacks if the shooters were using regular guns.
"WMD" is just a fun figure of speech it's not meant literally. Obviously there's a big difference between a nuclear bomb and your 9mm. That said, if a semi-automatic increases the death toll from 1 to 10, or 10 to 100 (an exponential factor) then I'd say that counts as mass destruction. >>
I see now. If only Adam Lanza was shooting a revolver, he would have only killed 6 kids. Then, in between reloads, the 6 year olds could have bum-rushed him and ended his carnage.
During the time where everyone is stacking or hoarding waiting for the collapse......who are you going to sell your hoard or stack to if everyone else has no money.........and when you sell would you take worthless dollars in trade?....or would you be using your hoard or stack to purchase items you need?
I think that you make your own rules, just like you do every day as a normal, thinking human being. You react to every situation according to the circumstances, just like you always do - only the circumstances would be somewhat different during a "collapse".
There are different types of collapse - political, economic, monetary, social. They don't all happen at the same time and they all result in different types of problems. We are dealing with a breakdown in society already - I would contend that this has been going on for decades. Hank Paulson was fearful of a monetary collapse that would have left his banking system powerless. Both political parties fear a political collapse, which is why no third party is ever allowed to gestate and grow into a viable party.
People tend to conceptualize a "collapse" in stark terms. The USSR collapsed, but Russia still exists. A collapse in our government might mean that the Constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land. Various groups would prefer it that way, and that's one of the biggest mistakes this country could ever make. I would prefer to see the government shrink considerably, but only to strip out several layers of bureaucracy in order to focus its governmental energy on the basics, as originally intended.
The private market is the most efficient way of utilizing resources, and efficiency means "more stuff" for everyone. The big difference between governmental administration and the private market is that "more stuff" is never free, and that efficiency doesn't allow for "free stuff", because free enterprise recognizes the reality that "work" is required to produce any stuff at all. Big government always uses more resources than it should, and big government never recognizes itself as being the source of the increased costs.
The Fed is a perfect example of government waste (even though it's not officially part of the government) - by creating "money" for nothing and pretending that it can provide "free stuff" with no effort whatsoever. "Money creation" by the Fed is the purest outright lie in government. Furthermore, "money creation" is well-documented as nothing less than outright stealing from savers, wage earners and the poor - the last 3 groups on the totem pole when new money is "created". You and I have the means to protect ourselves to some degree by moving our assets out of harm's way, but these last 3 groups in the money chain don't have that flexibility. The Fed automatically favors the big banks, big government, and big crony corporations with new money flows - in that order. This results in giving more resources to the organizations (i.e., the top dogs in the big organizations) who need it least, and in squeezing resources away from the people who have earned, saved and those who have the very least to begin with - the ones who can't defend themselves.
If you value fairness, and even if your thing simply happens to be "more stuff", big government isn't your answer.
I digress. Back to metals. Having metals during any sort of collapse is probably better than having paper. Heck, having ANYTHING during a collapse is probably better than having paper. Paper might still be used, but metals will be recognized as the basic value holder, simply because metals are totally recognizable and convenience, and trusted.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Comments
I stated: Our government is trending toward a more controlled and more intrusive form of government daily. This includes the media, which can't be considered a "free press" by any stretch of the imagination. The "history" part comes in when you consider what usually happens whenever a controlling government disarms the public.
We already have people in this government who follow Mao's philosophies and methods, and even quote him occasionally, but not in a negative way but in admiration. Mao holds the world record of killing the most of his own citizens (50 million to 60 million during the "cultural revolution") after they were disarmed. This doesn't phase Hillary Clinton, Van Jones or Vallerie Jarrett. It's a source of derision for Obama that people in the middle of the country "cling to their guns and religion". A source of ridicule. If you want to "understand" our culture, you might start with that.
To which, you responded: " you're way off base on the Mao bit - step away from the talk radio."
So if you choose to google it, you should educate yourself with the facts. To ignore the facts of this issue is to truly do a disservice to yourself and everyone else who reads and believes what you are saying. I am NOT off base about Mao, or Stalin, or the other despots on this list, to wit:
Documentation
And I knew that you would say: "why an argument for public safety means that I'm somehow 'against' what the USA stands for."
1) It's not a public safety question. It's a control issue, and it's only about controlling the people that you disagree with, not about the criminals. Why is that? You are attempting to marginalize gun rights, which is why you throw out a red herring on every issue you debate. You have an agenda, and it focuses on restricting other people who also happen to be law-abiding and stand-up people.
If criminal background checks are important, they are only nominally so. Do you agree that criminals are not going to submit to background checks? Or are you in complete denial of that basic detail? That being the case, all background checks serve to do is to hassle normal people and to generate fees for more bureaucrats.
We have serious problems with immigration, money laundering, market manipulation, gun running, and gang violence. Much of that is ignored or even perpetrated by our federal government. Law abiding citizens aren't the problem here. To intimate that they are the problem is catastrophically misguided and wrong.
I stand by my assertion. This bias has been promoted for the past 50 years actively. Every edifice and cultural tradition of the US that was won with blood and devotion has been attacked in both innocuous ways and outright for years. You're obviously a product of that thinking.
We simply won't ever agree in our thinking, miklia. What makes us different, is that I recognize your rights, but you don't recognize mine.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>We have serious problems with immigration, money laundering, market manipulation, gun running, and gang violence. Much of that is ignored or even perpetrated by our federal government. Law abiding citizens aren't the problem here. To intimate that they are the problem is catastrophically misguided and wrong. >>
Well said!!!
In this case, "Possibly, we ought to make it a little more difficult to get high-powered guns" becomes "They're trampling all the rights of law abiding citizens!"
Similarly, "perhaps precious metals have had several good years, and one might reconsider having most of their money in them at this time" becomes, "So you love fiat money and all your assets are in dollars, good luck with that!"
"Maybe the world is not ending immediately and maybe not everyone is a crook" causes some to say, "So everything is perfect in your dreamland with rainbows and unicorns!?!"
and so on (not singling out anyone in particular, just making general observations)
I will respond specifically to, Every edifice and cultural tradition of the US that was won with blood and devotion has been attacked in both innocuous ways and outright for years.
with, isn't that a little extreme?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I knew it would happen.
Ever gone over the speed limit, jmski? Then you're by definition not a law-abiding citizen either. And nor does committing a sole crime necessarily make one a 'criminal' for life. That's the problem with trying to live in a black and white world - the whole freaking thing is actually gray.
But we do agree one one thing at least - something needs to be done! That's the first step to progress, and middle grounds can always be found. Thanks again for the engagement.
Can you explain to me, why, I, as a retired person, never accused of a crime,
should be impinged, impeded, restricted, or disarmed of my ability to protect myself as a result of the actions of others?
If the government wants to control something why not start with the financial industry. Theres no oversight over those criminals whatsoever
For all (then really, let's go PM before the entire internets implode), I completely understand the rationale for asking the question that drwstr asked, I really do. Nobody likes to feel punished for being the one not breaking the law, be it wrt taxes, guns, or anything else. However, this approach requires us to ignore one very difficult aspect of human nature - sometimes heretofore 'law abiding people' just snap. Happens in every society since time immemorial, and there's quite a few recent examples that could be drawn upon. These minor restrictions are aimed at preventing what might be a low-level tragedy (a couple of people killed from guns that were purchased for protection) from becoming a slaughter (dozens killed from stockpiled arsenals of certain guns). It's an issue of scale, not about access.
<< <i>If the government wants to control something why not start with the financial industry. Theres no oversight over those criminals whatsoever >>
why do you think I'm long silver?
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
Ever gone over the speed limit, jmski? Then you're by definition not a law-abiding citizen either. And nor does committing a sole crime necessarily make one a 'criminal' for life. That's the problem with trying to live in a black and white world - the whole freaking thing is actually gray.
The question was about background checks in order to buy a gun. You didn't answer or respond to my points that criminals are not about to start signing up for background checks in order to buy a gun. It's not about normal people who might "snap". It's about people who obtain guns with the intent to commit heinous crimes, whether it's to hold up a convenience store or to strongarm the opposition in a drug deal. Or to shoot up the cops with an illegally-obtained weapon after doing some nasty act, like say setting off bombs at the Boston Marathon, or something like that.
These minor restrictions are aimed at preventing what might be a low-level tragedy (a couple of people killed from guns that were purchased for protection) from becoming a slaughter (dozens killed from stockpiled arsenals of certain guns).
And if there are more than one perp who decide to break into your house, are you fine with a mag that only holds 7 rounds?
Miklia, it's all additive. Every restriction adds to the body of restrictions. You think it's insignicant. I think it's monumentally important. We disagree 180 degrees.
And again, if a crazy or malevolent personality decides that he's gonna do something horrible, he's gonna do it. Your ill-advised ideas will impede, not help in stopping him.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Every edifice and cultural tradition of the US that was won with blood and devotion has been attacked in both innocuous ways and outright for years.
with, isn't that a little extreme?
Nope. It's not extreme. Next question. >>
Ok, everything about the country is being attacked. check.
next question is: what Rights do you Not have now that you did have before? be specific if possible. follow up question: which specific rights are threatened?
I ask these as a gun owner, and someone who does not feel that my rights (gun or otherwise) are restricted in any way by current laws, nor any proposed legislation that has any chance of passing. What is it you want to be able to do, and want everyone else to be able to do, that we cannot do, or that we can do and is threatened?
serious inquiry, you seem very very concerned and I'm sincerely trying to understand what is so controlled and intrusive in people's lives, and the SPECIFIC liberties lost
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>And if there are more than one perp who decide to break into your house, are you fine with a mag that only holds 7 rounds? >>
Yep, I spend enough time at the range to be comfortable with that.
<< <i>Apologies for the lack of clarity - I'm well aware of the horrific atrocities that Mao committed. I was referring to your insinuation that there is a mainstream (or really any) politician in the USA today that somehow supports Mao or his policies. There is not.
Ever gone over the speed limit, jmski? Then you're by definition not a law-abiding citizen either. And nor does committing a sole crime necessarily make one a 'criminal' for life. That's the problem with trying to live in a black and white world - the whole freaking thing is actually gray.
But we do agree one one thing at least - something needs to be done! That's the first step to progress, and middle grounds can always be found. Thanks again for the engagement. >>
Miklia - I am actually enjoying this banter quite a bit. Here is the flaw in your argument above. Where does it talk about speed limits in the constitution? That is the difference. The right to keep and bear arms is addressed in the constitution. Speed limits are not a constitutional right. I understand the point you are trying to make but I believe you are missing the point. I am sure you can drum up an argument that speed limits are somehow tied to the Federal Governments constitutional rights but I really think that is a stretch
As I would say in chess, "Check"
<< <i>
<< <i>Apologies for the lack of clarity - I'm well aware of the horrific atrocities that Mao committed. I was referring to your insinuation that there is a mainstream (or really any) politician in the USA today that somehow supports Mao or his policies. There is not.
Ever gone over the speed limit, jmski? Then you're by definition not a law-abiding citizen either. And nor does committing a sole crime necessarily make one a 'criminal' for life. That's the problem with trying to live in a black and white world - the whole freaking thing is actually gray.
But we do agree one one thing at least - something needs to be done! That's the first step to progress, and middle grounds can always be found. Thanks again for the engagement. >>
Miklia - I am actually enjoying this banter quite a bit. Here is the flaw in your argument above. Where does it talk about speed limits in the constitution? That is the difference. The right to keep and bear arms is addressed in the constitution. Speed limits are not a constitutional right. I understand the point you are trying to make but I believe you are missing the point. I am sure you can drum up an argument that speed limits are somehow tied to the Federal Governments constitutional rights but I really think that is a stretch
As I would say in chess, "Check"
The first amendment was written in the 1700's. Let's ignore the bit about the "well-regulated militia" and focus on "arms"
Well, a bazooka or a nuclear missile is an "arm", isn't it? does the first amendment let everybody have some of those? It doesn't say "small arms" but when written, it meant a single-shot flintlock or musket, but the founding fathers probably did not mean heavy cannon (nor could they have foreseen the need to specify)
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>
<< <i>And if there are more than one perp who decide to break into your house, are you fine with a mag that only holds 7 rounds? >>
Yep, I spend enough time at the range to be comfortable with that. >>
Funny, most law enforcement officers I know have sidearms w/ mags that carry 15+ rounds and I am 100% positive they see a lot more range time than you do!
Good point Baley.
<< <i>The first amendment was written in the 1700's. Let's ignore the bit about the "well-regulated militia" and focus on "arms" >>
Me believe the 1st has more to do with tongues than arms!!
That in itself should give you a clue about what rights we still have, and don't have. As I do think that misrepresentations and red herrings ought to be confronted, I also think that such commentaries should relate to the general forum format.
So, I'm backing off the debate a bit.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i> It doesn't say "small arms" but when written, it meant a single-shot flintlock or musket, but the founding fathers probably did not mean heavy cannon (nor could they have foreseen the need to specify) >>
Actually, someone owned the cannons and it wasn't the government. Not back then anyways! They did exist and each was under the control of one person. Generally the guy that shot it!
Yes, single-shot flintlock or musket were the "common" arm at the time as was the goose quill, ink and hemp paper. But, as technology grew, so did the common use of 15 to 30 rounds mags, semi-auto rifles, TV, radio, internet, and cellphone. Now, all these items are common and protected under the Bill of Rights.
A nuke on the other hand is NOT common and therefore, is not protected. You cantry to get a permit for it, along with a bazooka and even a fully automatic Tommy-gun. However, I would bet you would be denied permits for the first two though some have been able to get a permit for a bazooka.
Some a side note, has anyone used SILVER tips on Zombies or should we just keep our silver stacked!
<< <i>Some a side note, has anyone used SILVER tips on Zombies or should we just keep our silver stacked! >>
Save your silver bullets for werewolves.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>Some a side note, has anyone used SILVER tips on Zombies or should we just keep our silver stacked! >>
Save your silver bullets for werewolves.
Thanks!!!
I am not sure what happened to it but I am sure his Civil War reenactment regiment got it!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>And if there are more than one perp who decide to break into your house, are you fine with a mag that only holds 7 rounds? >>
Yep, I spend enough time at the range to be comfortable with that. >>
Funny, most law enforcement officers I know have sidearms w/ mags that carry 15+ rounds and I am 100% positive they see a lot more range time than you do! >>
I bet most LEOs see way less time at the range than the average enthusiast does. Once a month if most are even THAT frequent.
<< <i>
The first amendment was written in the 1700's. Let's ignore the bit about the "well-regulated militia" and focus on "arms"
Well, a bazooka or a nuclear missile is an "arm", isn't it? does the first amendment let everybody have some of those? It doesn't say "small arms" but when written, it meant a single-shot flintlock or musket, but the founding fathers probably did not mean heavy cannon (nor could they have foreseen the need to specify) >>
So does that mean too that if you have an emergency that you should saddle your horse and go find the nearest constable or physician since telephones and cell phones didn't exist back then?
If you elect enough of the right people you could well own a bazooka or LAWS rocket launcher. If you elect enough of the right people, you could well be prevented from owning any firearm. Luckily we have enough of a balance so that neither extreme prevails.
<< <i>As for the definition of "arms", I will leave that up to the Supreme Court to decide.
Good point Baley. >>
+1000 to Baley's comment. Although, I am fairly confident that if the makeup of the supreme court was currently 5-4 the other way, very, very few people here would be so willing to let the Court decide.
And thanks a lot Dr. Buster, now I want to go cannon shopping. That sounds awesome.
It makes an enormous diffenence, I think, if you grow up in a culture where guns are regarded as a constructive, routine, pervasive and a prominently recreational part of your family and community life, and where their use is introduce with insistent rules and worthy respect as to their use and handling, emphasizing safety and supervised training, much like horses used to be, farm equipment has always been, etc. Yes, the occasional accident or misuse occurs, but this is commonly regarded as rare, as object lessons about inadequate care, caution/respect or training, or as part of human existence where irrationality invariably erupts, rather like the viscissitudes of nature itself (tornados, droughts).
Consider the difference of an urban scene, with its component of rootlessness and anonymity, where guns by contrast are the far more prominent and common tool of lawlessness, intimidation and deliberate violence.
Is it any wonder that atitudes about guns would be so different among people living in such environments?
It's why I've been concerned about blanket Federal impositions about such matters.
While I do think that the 2nd Amendment assures the right of individuals to bear arms and that no laws can Constitutionally prevent it, it does seem to me that localities have the right to experiment with self-governing rules about their use. One can obviously argue the merits and efficacy of D.C.'s attempt some while ago (struck down by the courts) to require that some firearms in personal possession be disassembled when not in use, but IMO the people of D.C. should have the right to address their local problem through law and ordinance short of an outright ban. Sheriffs in the old westerns had guys park their guns at the sheriff's office while they were in town, or turn them over to the barkeep while they were in the saloon. A university president should have the right to ban guns from their campus, just like they ban hotplates from dorm rooms. A church's pastor and congregation should have the right to ban guns from the premises (or not), free of coercion from some Federal or court-imposed dictate.
At issue is both individual freedom and the capacity of a self-governing locale to manage their communal quality of life. We justifiably complain of Federal and court intrusions on matters such as prayers at football game. We should also complain about Federal and court intrusions on the ability of local communities and institutions to try managing the gun phenomenon, short of violating the Constitutional guarantee of possession.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
Excuse me, I said nothing of the sort. Criminals define themselves by their own actions. Criminals who have the intention of using weapons for ill purposes will not submit to any attempt to deter them, and they certainly won't voluntarily submit to background checks for the purpose of procuring a firearm.
miklia chooses to never acknowledge the basic facts of the matter, and continues to toss out red herrings that don't relate to the core issues. Carry on.
I knew it would happen.
Now, to comment on another part of your post:
<< <i>While I do think that the 2nd Amendment assures the right of individuals to bear arms and that no laws can Constitutionally prevent it, it does seem to me that localities have the right to experiment with self-governing rules about their use. >>
Do you feel the same way about all the amendments in the Bill of Rights? Should local government agencies have self-governing rules regarding say, freedom of speech, search and seizure, right to an attorney, etc.???? Remember, the Bill of Rights grants its powers to the people, not the government.
<< <i>Do you feel the same way about all the amendments in the Bill of Rights? Should local government agencies have self-governing rules regarding say, freedom of speech, search and seizure, right to an attorney, etc.???? Remember, the Bill of Rights grants its powers to the people, not the government. >>
I firmly agree that the rights and powers of government are enumerated in the Constitution, and that individual latitude and freedom are the default and premise of the document and (ideally) of its interpretation.
I have considered it at least a potential Constitutional crisis when the Federal government has expanded its role in the lives of individuals through reinterpretations of the Consitution beyond its founding verbiage and intent, not that the outcome of such expansion is always undesireable (e.g., civil rights), but that such activity is a slippery slope, and encourages those with disastifactions to turn to courts for imposition of social, political and economic change, rather than to discussion, debate and local legislative decisions with regard to implementing such changes.
Civil rights and the phenomenon/aftermatch of slavery constituted a Constitutional crisis from its inception and IMO could not have been eradicated and addressed without doing some violence to Constitutional principles.
Otherwise, though, I do think that matters such as prayer in school, abortion, gay marriage etc., should be left to the evolving attitudes of people and to their ability to convince one another of change through the power of persuasion and self-determined legislation. Real and perceived injustices are undoubtedly addressed and remedied more slowly and less efficiently by such a system, but this was the system that the Founders in balance recognized was most likely to preserve participatory self-governance and individual freedom over the long term.
So, yes. While the Courts stand as a bulwark against over-zealous legislative restraints on individual freedoms, and while systemic checks and balances have been an absolutely vital aspect of our governing system, I do lean in favor of allowing local communities latitude to experiment with the practical implementation of Constitutional principles, such as how the right of individuals to bear arms should be locally managed.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
I get the distinct felling it is to protect law enforcement in order to limit and minimize opposition.
Why else would this legislation effect the law-abiding too?
<< <i>So, yes. While the Courts stand as a bulwark against over-zealous legislative restraints on individual freedoms, and while systemic checks and balances have been an absolutely vital aspect of our governing system, I do lean in favor of allowing local communities latitude to experiment with the practical implementation of Constitutional principles, such as how the right of individuals to bear arms should be locally managed. >>
"...shall not be infringed"
edited to add:
The Bill of Rights, more specifically, the 2nd Ammendment, is not a "Constitutional principle." It is a right.
Rights do not need to be implemented. They need to be recognized and respected.
Its the principle of freedom to hold onto. Although, as the government keeps growing and the individual keeps becoming less important,
hasn't it already started...
My problem with this line of thinking is that the constitution gives me the right to bear arms in any state, city or local community. It is a constitutional right that can't be trampled on by the states or any local government. I don't even think it is constitutional that they try to limit me at church, school or any other place.
In terms of what "arms" means. I honestly believe it was meant for side arms and fire arms as it was written. This would not include bombs or cannons or weapons of mass destruction but would include knives, clubs, guns, etc.... (this is based on the little research I have done on this topic).
I totally disagree. The second amendment is the same as every other statement in the constitution; it is simply a foundational statement that is used to build our system of laws. And, that's why this debate is so difficult. Some people view their right to bear arms as if it is some type of religious right. It isn't.
I live in Massachusetts. I had lunch today with a friend who lives in Watertown, where there was a shoot-out with the police and 200 rounds were fired. Watertown is a nice, working-class suburb, but people could actually hear the gun-shots. My friend's daughters are afraid to go to school. It's a horrible situation and the people around here do not have a lot of patience for statements indicating that a 19 year old kid has a God-given right to own an arsenal of weapons so that he can use his weapons to manifest his personal political beliefs.
It's a foundational right, not a foundational statement and if the country wants to eliminate it or any of the other Amendments, there is a legal way to do that instead of trying to legislate around it.
I live in Massachusetts. I had lunch today with a friend who lives in Watertown, where there was a shoot-out with the police and 200 rounds were fired. Watertown is a nice, working-class suburb, but people could actually hear the gun-shots. My friend's daughters are afraid to go to school. It's a horrible situation and the people around here do not have a lot of patience for statements indicating that a 19 year old kid has a God-given right to own an arsenal of weapons so that he can use his weapons to manifest his personal political beliefs.
Neither of them were legal gun owners, nor can you associate them with legal gun owners in any way. This isn't about legal guns. This isn't about political beliefs. This is about islamic terrorism and anti-American sentiment, and if all those Feds and security details clustered all around the Boston Marathon couldn't even sniff this out in advance, there's no way some moronic background check of legal gun owners would have made any difference in this Watertown episode either.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>The Bill of Rights, more specifically, the 2nd Ammendment, is not a "Constitutional principle." It is a right. Rights do not need to be implemented. They need to be recognized and respected.
I totally disagree. The second amendment is the same as every other statement in the constitution; it is simply a foundational statement that is used to build our system of laws. And, that's why this debate is so difficult. Some people view their right to bear arms as if it is some type of religious right. It isn't.
I live in Massachusetts. I had lunch today with a friend who lives in Watertown, where there was a shoot-out with the police and 200 rounds were fired. Watertown is a nice, working-class suburb, but people could actually hear the gun-shots. My friend's daughters are afraid to go to school. It's a horrible situation and the people around here do not have a lot of patience for statements indicating that a 19 year old kid has a God-given right to own an arsenal of weapons so that he can use his weapons to manifest his personal political beliefs. >>
Well, I think you're totally wrong about the Bill of Rights. These are rights that have been endowed by our Creator. They are not granted to us from the government.
It's a terrible situation that occured in Boston. However, people have the right to bear arms. That is a right. They do not have the right to commit jihad. You need to seperate the instrument from the abuser. A gun, like a camera, is just an instrument. A person can use either one for good. In some instances a person with evil intentions, we call these people criminals, can use them to commit horrible crimes like murder, or in the case of a camera - using it to take pronographic pictures of children.
So yeah, we, as American citizens, have the right to bear arms. And that right shall not be infringed.
<< <i>So yeah, we, as American citizens, have the right to bear arms. And that right shall not be infringed. >>
Big difference between bearing "arms" vs. ginormous magazines and semi-auto weapons of mass destruction.
Nobody needs more than six rounds. Anything beyond that is asking for trouble. And nobody with a history of alcoholism and/or depression should be allowed to own a gun. Most gun deaths are suicides.
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
<< <i>
<< <i>So yeah, we, as American citizens, have the right to bear arms. And that right shall not be infringed. >>
Big difference between bearing "arms" vs. ginormous magazines and semi-auto weapons of mass destruction.
Nobody needs more than six rounds. Anything beyond that is asking for trouble. And nobody with a history of alcoholism and/or depression should be allowed to own a gun. Most gun deaths are suicides. >>
I disagree. The Founders decided to call it "The Bill of Rights." They did not call it "The Bill of Needs" or "The Bill of Wants."
Who are you, or anyone for that matter, to decide how much armament I should have to protect myself or my property?
And by the way, Ted Kennedy's automobile of mass destruction has killed more people than my semi-automatic pistol.
For example: free speech is our right, but hate speech and slander are illegal.
Personal side arms are our right to bear, but semi-auto WMDs should be banned.
And let's stay on topic and not mix apples with oranges... I'm all about driving sober
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
<< <i>When our actions infringe others' rights the law enters. Our society has a TON of laws and precedents which limit the scope of freedom to protect us from ourselves.
For example: free speech is our right, but hate speech and slander are illegal.
Personal side arms are our right to bear, but semi-auto WMDs should be banned.
And let's stay on topic and not mix apples with oranges... I'm all about driving sober
Please explain why my 9mm semi-auto Beretta of peace and tranquility should be banned as a WMD?
I'm not mixing apples and oranges here. If a semi-auto pistol is a WMD, then you're of course willing to conceed that Sadaam Hussein did indeed have WMD's then too, right?
I suppose we should figure out exactly what you mean by WMD.
Now regarding your Beretta… As you know, semi-automatics can fire more rounds (faster?) than regular pistolás. Therefore in the hands of a bad meanie person, they can cause much more damage. Also, from the perspective of police and security guards, it's much easier to stop a shooter *quickly* if they have to reload more often. This is fact not opinion. More victims would survive attacks if the shooters were using regular guns.
"WMD" is just a fun figure of speech it's not meant literally. Obviously there's a big difference between a nuclear bomb and your 9mm. That said, if a semi-automatic increases the death toll from 1 to 10, or 10 to 100 (an exponential factor) then I'd say that counts as mass destruction.
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
<<A criminal or a terrorist isn't going to bother with any gun applications or background checks.>>
What is it about that simple fact that gun-haters don't understand?
Emotional responses by (well-intentioned) liberals to every conceivable wrong, injustice, fear, inequity or danger - is what causes more problems in the first place. Their big government creation is the biggest problem we face. Nobody except the shooter or the b*mber is responsible for his own actions, regardless of how liberals would like to place the blame elsewhere. Until we all lay the blame where it belongs, nothing is going to be resolved.
The problem with ***reality*** is that you can't simply wave a magic wand and make it so. A hostile ideology isn't going to go away, nor is the criminal mentality going to back off, if we would simply ban guns, or their components. It's just not so, and hoping that it might be so won't make it so. The solution to criminal action and terrorist action is for people to stand up and defend themselves, and to do it very well.
I knew it would happen.
During the time where everyone is stacking or hoarding waiting for the collapse......who are you going to sell your hoard or stack to if everyone else has no money.........and when you sell would you take worthless dollars in trade?....or would you be using your hoard or stack to purchase items you need?
<< <i>Wow you are so confused. Guns are the apples, and drunk driving (Ted Kennedy? really?) are the oranges.
Now regarding your Beretta… As you know, semi-automatics can fire more rounds (faster?) than regular pistolás. Therefore in the hands of a bad meanie person, they can cause much more damage. Also, from the perspective of police and security guards, it's much easier to stop a shooter *quickly* if they have to reload more often. This is fact not opinion. More victims would survive attacks if the shooters were using regular guns.
"WMD" is just a fun figure of speech it's not meant literally. Obviously there's a big difference between a nuclear bomb and your 9mm. That said, if a semi-automatic increases the death toll from 1 to 10, or 10 to 100 (an exponential factor) then I'd say that counts as mass destruction. >>
I see now. If only Adam Lanza was shooting a revolver, he would have only killed 6 kids. Then, in between reloads, the 6 year olds could have bum-rushed him and ended his carnage.
I think that you make your own rules, just like you do every day as a normal, thinking human being. You react to every situation according to the circumstances, just like you always do - only the circumstances would be somewhat different during a "collapse".
There are different types of collapse - political, economic, monetary, social. They don't all happen at the same time and they all result in different types of problems. We are dealing with a breakdown in society already - I would contend that this has been going on for decades. Hank Paulson was fearful of a monetary collapse that would have left his banking system powerless. Both political parties fear a political collapse, which is why no third party is ever allowed to gestate and grow into a viable party.
People tend to conceptualize a "collapse" in stark terms. The USSR collapsed, but Russia still exists. A collapse in our government might mean that the Constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land. Various groups would prefer it that way, and that's one of the biggest mistakes this country could ever make. I would prefer to see the government shrink considerably, but only to strip out several layers of bureaucracy in order to focus its governmental energy on the basics, as originally intended.
The private market is the most efficient way of utilizing resources, and efficiency means "more stuff" for everyone. The big difference between governmental administration and the private market is that "more stuff" is never free, and that efficiency doesn't allow for "free stuff", because free enterprise recognizes the reality that "work" is required to produce any stuff at all. Big government always uses more resources than it should, and big government never recognizes itself as being the source of the increased costs.
The Fed is a perfect example of government waste (even though it's not officially part of the government) - by creating "money" for nothing and pretending that it can provide "free stuff" with no effort whatsoever. "Money creation" by the Fed is the purest outright lie in government. Furthermore, "money creation" is well-documented as nothing less than outright stealing from savers, wage earners and the poor - the last 3 groups on the totem pole when new money is "created". You and I have the means to protect ourselves to some degree by moving our assets out of harm's way, but these last 3 groups in the money chain don't have that flexibility. The Fed automatically favors the big banks, big government, and big crony corporations with new money flows - in that order. This results in giving more resources to the organizations (i.e., the top dogs in the big organizations) who need it least, and in squeezing resources away from the people who have earned, saved and those who have the very least to begin with - the ones who can't defend themselves.
If you value fairness, and even if your thing simply happens to be "more stuff", big government isn't your answer.
I digress. Back to metals. Having metals during any sort of collapse is probably better than having paper. Heck, having ANYTHING during a collapse is probably better than having paper. Paper might still be used, but metals will be recognized as the basic value holder, simply because metals are totally recognizable and convenience, and trusted.
I knew it would happen.