Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
I don't buy this. First he would have to find a contact to get the gun. In addition the gun would be much more expensive. Then there is also a lot more risk in getting caught because now he has to worry about undercover agents. Your logic is so flawed. It is like saying we can't stop 13 year olds from drinking alcohol so lets just sell them alcohol anyways.
I could be wrong but I was under the impression that this was a state University thus why I said the state is going to be paying. If it isn't a state run University then I see both getting sued.
|
Sory, but that attempt at a comparison is rediculous... You cannot compare underage drinking to what happened here. Teens and such that try to sneak a drink illegally are for the
most part only hurting themselves, and generally not
INTENT on causing physical harm to a large group of people. I CANNOT and WILL NOT accept this as even a REMOTELY good comparison. Any no, it ISN'T that difficult to obtain a firearm illegally. They are not usually expensive as you are trying to show. Illegal guns are normally stolen, so therefore cost to the seller is zero, so if you sell if for a cheap $200.00, then you are making a pretty darn good profit. if someone really wants a gun, it is not difficult at all to obtain one pretty quickly, and cheaply. If you look at the background, only the Glock was purchased legally. His other pistol they have YET to find where he obtained it from.
Will, I find your posts quite insightful, and DO enjoy seeing you bring out some interesting points, even if I disagree with you. Again it is a priveledge to debate things with you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
And you're not the only one the read it that way. The thing is: they were obviously intended to be linked in spirit by their logical functions. It's in that sense that I derive my interpretation.
|
This is of course why we have the SCOTUS to try and help interpret what was meant. Personally I think old G. Washington would have surrendered to the Brittish if he saw our country today...lol
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
How would this apply today? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Federal government continues on it's current authoritarian road. Let's say that, in the name of fighting crime or terrorism, that we have tanks rolling down our streets, curfews, kidnappings, the loss of due process for those citizens captured, and detention camps for those suspected but not tried. If this were to ever happen, I would have the Constitutionally protected right to organize a militia to the ends of returning order. It's the right to resist governmental tyranny in organized groups. I'd probably use bombs instead of guns, personally, because it's clear that IEDs are the most successful way to combat a military like ours. They're cheap and easy to construct from common parts and compounds.
When you ask a gun owner why they own a gun, I'd be willing to bet that they'd say they have the gun to protect themselves or their families from criminals or aggressors. While I concede that this is reasonable, I do think it's clear that that intent is not in the Second Amendment, and thus things like the right for an individual to bear arms is not Constitutionally protected unless they are a member of a militia which has the function of supporting the power of the populace in case the government oversteps it's bounds.
|
OK. let me pose a question for you Will...and I am being truly honest here. If we were to only arm a militia for your above mentioned senario, where would we keep the weapons used to arm them? a central location? or allow individuals to keep them at home?
While I agree with you that MOST people would say they keep a firearm in their home to protect their family, It's not like you would ask someone that question and honestly expect them to respond "I keep my firearm just in case a militia is formed to raise up against a tyranical government"...
Unfortunately our country is what it is today. and as such, we have an inordinate amount of criminals that are themselves armed. I see it this way, if were were to finally have the government say "thats it! enough! we have decided to repeal the 2nd amendment, and will require all citizens to disarm themselves"...next thing you know, the CRIMINALS who ARE still armed, now know that NOBODY is at home with a firearm. They can now go on a crime spree, knowing that homeowners can no longer defend themselves against them with them carrying a gun!
To be honest, I wouldn't mind at all giving up my gun, if the government could GUARANTEE that I would be protected in my own home against said criminals. Our country is what it is. and unfortunately I cannot see a sucessful ban on firearms. I DO agree with stricter MONITORING of gun purchasing and ownership. EVERY gun I own is registered. Even the ones purchased from a private individual gets registered with my local sherriff's office.
On a side note. There is much talk about the "mental stability" of the person who commited the massacre at VT. The biggest thing is this....when filling out a gun purchase form, one of the questions is "have you ever been hospitalized or treated for a mental condition"...this question is COMPLETELY voluntary in answer, because if you all remember, Mental health conditions are like a lawyer, client's privacy is protected, so it is not like when the people involved in doing the background check can ACTUALLY check to see if you have ever been commited, unless the commiting was done by a court order.....
And as was mentioned earlier. it is federal law that you cannot purchase OR own a
handgun
under the age of 21 in ANY state. If yo uwere given a HANDGUN as a gift, and are under the age of 21, then the person who gave it to you has VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW...I had looked this up not that long ago. The law was enacted by Bill Clinton in his last year in office. Unless Things have changed. If so, then I say we should push for it again!