Your views on Stand-Your-Ground, AKA Lethal Self Defense, laws - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

filtherton · 11-13-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

I'm even less of a genius than you, Filtherton. Science has proven it.

However, I feel that vagueness is what often maintains rights instead of restricting them.

Do you think we'd have any guns today if the second amendment wasn't there?

Science has shown itself to be inaccurate 28.3% of the time.

I think we might have guns today without the second amendment. Correct me if i'm wrong, but canadians don't have a canadian version of the second amendment, yet still have guns(though from my understanding not too many handguns). I don't think the second amendment is really that strong in terms of protecting the right to own guns, especially in light of my poorly informed arguments above. None of the rights enumerated in the constitution are absolute, and if there's anything reliable about americans, it is their willingness to give up their rights in exchange for the perception of safety.

Plan9 · 11-13-2007, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

good points and stuff

I concur. We suck.

I'd move to Canada but my they don't like my ARs / AKs / TEC 9 / Plainfield PP30 / flamethrowers / plasma rifles / etc.

Baraka_Guru · 11-13-2007, 11:05 AM

Yeah, Crompsie, but we don't need them because we have Socialists in power and Mounties to uphold said power. How else is it that we're still independent of the USA?

You're ten times more likely to die from a hockey head injury than you are from a violent criminal. It's all good.

dksuddeth · 11-13-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Now, i'm not a fucking genius, but if i were there writing the constitution i might have been a little less vauge if i thought it was important.

the problem that we face currently isn't trying to interpret the constitution and determine what rights it gives us, because it doesn't. The constitution grants no rights. What it DOES do is it limits the power of the government.
By letting the anti-freedom folks turn the argument in to what rights are afforded by the constitution, we've lost over half the battle. The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant me the right to bear arms, it limits the government from infringing on that right that pre-exists. In other words, the framers of the constitution determined that we already had the right to bear arms and the 2nd amendment was written to prevent the government from doing anything to take that away or discourage it. That is why I keep saying 'shall not be infringed' means exactly that. It means that government shall not infringe. Unfortunately, in todays little PC world of touchy feely 'gotta look out for peoples sensitivities' world, we get our rights legislated away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

and if there's anything reliable about americans, it is their willingness to give up their rights in exchange for the perception of safety.

quoted for absoluteness and truth.

Martian · 11-13-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Correct me if i'm wrong, but canadians don't have a canadian version of the second amendment, yet still have guns(though from my understanding not too many handguns).

You are correct, sir. While there is no analogue to the second amendment in either the charter or the constitution, we do still have the ability to purchase and own firearms. However, we have comparatively more hoops to jump through and are more restricted as to exactly what weapons we can or can't have (semi-automatic rifles, for example, are only legal with a magazine capacity of 5 cartridges or less; handguns are restricted to 10). As well, all of our firearms are currently required to be registered in a national database, which is our own Big Scary Gun Issue of the day.

filtherton · 11-13-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

the problem that we face currently isn't trying to interpret the constitution and determine what rights it gives us, because it doesn't. The constitution grants no rights. What it DOES do is it limits the power of the government.
By letting the anti-freedom folks turn the argument in to what rights are afforded by the constitution, we've lost over half the battle. The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant me the right to bear arms, it limits the government from infringing on that right that pre-exists. In other words, the framers of the constitution determined that we already had the right to bear arms and the 2nd amendment was written to prevent the government from doing anything to take that away or discourage it. That is why I keep saying 'shall not be infringed' means exactly that. It means that government shall not infringe. Unfortunately, in todays little PC world of touchy feely 'gotta look out for peoples sensitivities' world, we get our rights legislated away.

I see what you're saying, but even if you had an absolute right to bear arms, that doesn't mean that you necessarily have the right to bear any type arms, or that you have the right to ammunition. I mean, i think we would all be a little better off if the founders had spent a little bit more time on the 2nd.

But then again, these were folks who had a very good idea of what it was like to fight for the existence of their country. I would imagine that creating a new country through armed rebellion might be a pretty dominating force when forming an opinion on whether the populace should be armed or not. They probably thought that the meaning of the 2nd was pretty obvious.

But then again, again, they lived in a time of muskets (i think), and i imagine few, if any, of them had any accurate notions as to the scope and effectiveness of the weaponry that would eventually be available to fit in the palm of one's hand. They were men of their times, and the constitution reflects that. We are a reflection of our times, where it's been at least a half a century since any american had to fight in a war whose outcome might be directly and obviously linked with our continued existence as a country. It's been even longer since we've had to fight for our existence on our own soil (9/11 doesn't count). Nowadays, tyranny is expected from the government. I think the founding fathers failed to take into account that things earned are often more respected than things given. I imagine that if they were more astute observers of human behavior, or were aware of the inevitable invention of the television, they might not have even bothered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

You are correct, sir. While there is no analogue to the second amendment in either the charter or the constitution, we do still have the ability to purchase and own firearms. However, we have comparatively more hoops to jump through and are more restricted as to exactly what weapons we can or can't have (semi-automatic rifles, for example, are only legal with a magazine capacity of 5 cartridges or less; handguns are restricted to 10). As well, all of our firearms are currently required to be registered in a national database, which is our own Big Scary Gun Issue of the day.

Well, it seems that the average american's ability to own guns differs from the average canadians only by degrees. Given the right circumstances we might be headed in your direction, in terms of gun laws.

dksuddeth · 11-13-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I think the founding fathers failed to take into account that things earned are often more respected than things given. I imagine that if they were more astute observers of human behavior, or were aware of the inevitable invention of the television, they might not have even bothered.

I could certainly agree with that.

1010011010 · 11-13-2007, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

But then again, again, they lived in a time of muskets (i think), and i imagine few, if any, of them had any accurate notions as to the scope and effectiveness of the weaponry that would eventually be available to fit in the palm of one's hand.

Curiously, you don't often find exceptions for muzzle loading pistols in gun control bills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

They were men of their times, and the constitution reflects that. We are a reflection of our times, where it's been at least a half a century since any american had to fight in a war whose outcome might be directly and obviously linked with our continued existence as a country. It's been even longer since we've had to fight for our existence on our own soil (9/11 doesn't count). Nowadays, tyranny is expected from the government. I think the founding fathers failed to take into account that things earned are often more respected than things given. I imagine that if they were more astute observers of human behavior, or were aware of the inevitable invention of the television, they might not have even bothered.

Are you under the impression than every single able bodied male in the colonies picked up his trusty musket and kilt him some redcoats? It is expected that a revolution will start with a small number of people and, given sufficient popular support, will be able to fight and take the day. But the population must be able to give support that is relevant to the cause... and for that reason we have limited the power we grant to our government to restrict what support the population can offer to would-be revolutionaries.

filtherton · 11-13-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1010011010

Curiously, you don't often find exceptions for muzzle loading pistols in gun control bills.

And you don't often hear second amendment advocates lamenting the loss of their right to own nuclear weapons.

Quote:

Are you under the impression than every single able bodied male in the colonies picked up his trusty musket and kilt him some redcoats? It is expected that a revolution will start with a small number of people and, given sufficient popular support, will be able to fight and take the day. But the population must be able to give support that is relevant to the cause... and for that reason we have limited the power we grant to our government to restrict what support the population can offer to would-be revolutionaries.

I'm not under the impression that every single able bodied male in the colonies picked up his trusty musket and kilt him some redcoats. I'm not sure who you're claiming is doing the expecting when you say "It is expected that a revolution will start with a small number of people and, given sufficient popular support, will be able to fight and take the day" or why that is a reasonable expectation. And i understand the common rationale behind the second amendment, i just think that that it was poorly written, and that the reason it was poorly written might have been that for all the foresight the founders did have, they apparently lacked the foresight to take into account the tendency for cultures and technology to change.

Plan9 · 11-13-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

You're ten times more likely to die from a hockey head injury than you are from a violent criminal. It's all good.

But it isn't good, bro... I rather enjoy my shooting hobby. I would miss my toys.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1010011010

Curiously, you don't often find exceptions for muzzle loading pistols in gun control bills.

Black powder firearms... the secret coup.

Baraka_Guru · 11-14-2007, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

But it isn't good, bro... I rather enjoy my shooting hobby. I would miss my toys.

Though it might be a bit of a trade-off, there are still a lot of cool things you can shoot with up here, I'm sure.

Canada Firearms Centre (www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca)
Prohibited Firearms
Firearm Owners Moving to Canada

Plan9 · 11-14-2007, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Though it might be a bit of a trade-off, there are still a lot of cool things you can shoot with up here, I'm sure.

Prohibited Firearms

As I was saying, according to Canadian law I would (no joke) have to sell 75% of my collection. Oh-hell-no. I have priceless pieces that aren't made anymore and "mean looking assault weapons" that I have customized to my every desire.

(blames Canada)

Eeeh, Vermont is already half Canadian. I like their laws.

dksuddeth · 11-14-2007, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Eeeh, Vermont is already half Canadian. I like their laws.

strongly considering the move to vermont. most excellent gun laws there.

Push-Pull · 11-19-2007, 04:44 AM

Looks like this new law will be getting court tested pretty dang quickly....

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5306638.html

Quote:

911 tape traces deadly shootings by Pasadena man

Minutes before he shot and killed two burglary suspects, a Pasadena man ignored repeated orders from a police dispatcher not to go outside with a shotgun.

Police today identified the dead men as 38-year-old Miguel Antonio DeJesus and Diego Ortiz, 30, both of Houston.

On a 911 tape released Thursday, a dispatcher is heard asking Joe Horn to stay inside his home until police arrived. But Horn, who had called police about 2 p.m. Wednesday to report that he witnessed two men break into a neighbor's home, told the dispatcher he planned to "kill" the suspects.

"I'm not going to let them get away with it," said Horn, who reported being inside his home in the 7400 block of Timberline looking out a window. "I'm gonna shoot. I'm gonna shoot."

For approximately six minutes, the Pasadena police operator told Horn to remain in his home and repeatedly discouraged the 61-year-old man from taking his gun outside.

"Stay inside the house and don't go out there. OK?" the operator told Horn in calm tones. " ... I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting someone over this. OK?"

Charles Lambright, Horn's attorney, said Thursday that the audio recording suggests Horn was afraid for his own safety.

"Just because he went outside doesn't mean he went outside with the idea of shooting them," Lambright said. "All I can see is a concerned homeowner who was scared for his own safety and, if he was some kind of nutcase, I don't think he would have called 911. His intention was to get police out there."

Pasadena police said it would be up to a Harris County grand jury to decide if Horn committed a crime. Charges had not been filed Thursday and Horn was not taken into custody.

"Usually, things like this take a little while to be presented to us," said Assistant District Attorney Lynne Parsons. "We would want the officers to contact witnesses and collect evidence."

The owners of the home that was burglarized could not be reached for comment. On the audio recording, Horn tells the operator that he did not know them very well. But, he states that he was upset that the men appeared to be burglarizing a home in broad daylight.

'Not worth killing someone'
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.

Horn is heard on the recording telling the operator that he has a right to protect himself and under a new law that went into effect in September.

The law, passed earlier this year, gives Texans stronger rights to defend themselves with deadly force, but Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a San Antonio Republican, has said he does not think it would apply in this case.

"Property's not worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house. Don't be shooting nobody," the operator told Horn shortly before he left his home and fired at least two shotgun blasts at the men.

Investigators were taking measurements outside Horn's home in an upper-middle class Village Grove East subdivision near Fairmont and Center.

Bag of cash recovered
Pasadena Police Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett said Horn was cooperative with officers at the scene and later made a statement at the police station.

The white bag one of the dead men had been carrying contained a large amount of cash, apparently taken from the house, Corbett said.

Two windows in the back of the house had been broken, he said. One was a regular window, but the other was glass blocks. It was the breaking glass that alerted Horn, Corbett said.

Police have not found the families of the dead men. One had identification indicating he was from Puerto Rico, the other had documentation indicating he may have been from Puerto Rico, Colombia or the Dominican Republic, Corbett said.

Both men were shot once at a range of less than 15 feet with a 12-gauge shotgun.

Chronicle reporter Ruth Rendon contributed to this report.

1010011010 · 11-19-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

And you don't often hear second amendment advocates lamenting the loss of their right to own nuclear weapons.

In public, anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

[F]or all the foresight the founders did have, they apparently lacked the foresight to take into account the tendency for cultures and technology to change.

Or they really thought that Joe Citizen should be trusted to keep any weapon he could make or get someone to sell him, regardless of technological advances or trends in popular sentiment... because it was that important to the security of freedom.

filtherton · 11-19-2007, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1010011010

In public, anyway.

Yeah, they don't talk about it in public because it's ridiculous, and talking about it in public would be a pretty surefire way for them to discredit themselves and the people they speak for because most people recognize it as being completely fucking insane.

Quote:

Or they really thought that Joe Citizen should be trusted to keep any weapon he could make or get someone to sell him, regardless of technological advances or trends in popular sentiment... because it was that important to the security of freedom.

Okay, so we have, "the founders thought it would be a good idea for anyone at all to be able to procure any kind of weapon, even the ones, which, when used properly, could kill everyone in a medium sized town because somehow the ability for every individual to wipe medium sized towns off of the map is a necessary condition for protection from tyranny" versus, "the founders had no fucking clue what was going to be possible technologically, and as such the second amendment is an ill informed piece of law." Okay. Well, i know which side i choose, and it isn't the one based on seemingly naive notions about the innate ability of the average person to employ weapons of mass destruction in the name of freedom.

How about biological weapons? Are the founding fathers advocates of an anthrax vial for every patriot? I mean, if the average person should be trusted to keep any weapon he could make or get someone to sell him, regardless of technological advances or trends in popular sentiment because it was that important to the security of freedom, shouldn't the average person be free to stockpile whatever biological agents s/he feels are necessary for the protection of freedom?

highthief · 11-20-2007, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Push-Pull

Looks like this new law will be getting court tested pretty dang quickly....

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5306638.html

I don't have a big problem with someone shooting a person breaking into their home and who poses a direct threat to you or your family - I have a big problem with this crazy old son of a bitch murdering a couple of guys who were running away, no matter if they just committed a burglary. You go to jail for committing a burglary, you don't die for it.

Plan9 · 11-20-2007, 03:49 AM

Logic would dictate that they were referring to small arms.

Not tanks, not rocket launchers, not CBRN systems.

Jesus, how silly is this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

I don't have a big problem with someone shooting a person breaking into their home and who poses a direct threat to you or your family - I have a big problem with this crazy old son of a bitch murdering a couple of guys who were running away, no matter if they just committed a burglary. You go to jail for committing a burglary, you don't die for it.

That is your perspective. I think the threat of death is an excellent deterrent to keeping felons who know what they're doing is a felony outta my house.

filtherton · 11-20-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Logic would dictate that they were referring to small arms.

Not tanks, not rocket launchers, not CBRN systems.

Jesus, how silly is this?

It's pretty silly.

1010011010 · 11-20-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Okay, so we have, "the founders thought it would be a good idea for anyone at all to be able to procure any kind of weapon, even the ones, which, when used properly, could kill everyone in a medium sized town because somehow the ability for every individual to wipe medium sized towns off of the map is a necessary condition for protection from tyranny" versus, "the founders had no fucking clue what was going to be possible technologically, and as such the second amendment is an ill informed piece of law."

Having a right to keep and bear arms does not guarantee "for anyone at all to be able to procure" any kind of arm they may wish to keep or bear. Much like the right to pursue happiness is not a right to happiness.

You could legally own a fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launcher... cept you probably couldn't afford one even if you did find someone willing to sell you one. Do you think the situation would be much different with your doomsday devices?

filtherton · 11-20-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1010011010

Having a right to keep and bear arms does not guarantee "for anyone at all to be able to procure" any kind of arm they may wish to keep or bear. Much like the right to pursue happiness is not a right to happiness.

I think that you're contradicting yourself. Above, seemingly in reference to the absolute right to bear arms intended by the founders, you said:

Quote:

Or they really thought that Joe Citizen should be trusted to keep any weapon he could make or get someone to sell him, regardless of technological advances or trends in popular sentiment... because it was that important to the security of freedom.

Either you are saying shit that you don't believe for the sake of argument- in which case you might want to be a bit more consistent for the sake of argument- or your opinion on the meaning of the second is essentially not fundamentally different from someone who supports gun control- i.e. that the right to bear arms isn't absolute and, like the freedom of speech, should be limited. Maybe you do support gun control, though that's not the impression i've gotten from you.

Quote:

You could legally own a fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launcher... cept you probably couldn't afford one even if you did find someone willing to sell you one. Do you think the situation would be much different with your doomsday devices?

Do you think that a fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launcher could kill 80,000 people and obliterate an entire city in the blink of an eye? Do you think a fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launcher could cause an epidemic of fatal disease? Granted, i'm no expert when it comes to fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launchers, but i find the idea pretty unlikely.

Plan9 · 11-20-2007, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Do you think that a fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launcher could kill 80,000 people and obliterate an entire city in the blink of an eye? Do you think a fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launcher could cause an epidemic of fatal disease? Granted, i'm no expert when it comes to fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launchers, but i find the idea pretty unlikely.

Mk19 is a piece of shit anyway.

Telluride · 11-20-2007, 07:53 PM

I'm in favor of this sort of law. I believe that people have a right to use deadly force to defend their lives and property and the lives and property of others.

Martian · 11-21-2007, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Do you think that a fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launcher could kill 80,000 people and obliterate an entire city in the blink of an eye? Do you think a fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launcher could cause an epidemic of fatal disease? Granted, i'm no expert when it comes to fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launchers, but i find the idea pretty unlikely.

Do you think you could say 'fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launcher' five times fast?

That someone could possibly argue in favour of Joe Schmoe being able to procure nuclear warheads is patently absurd.

highthief · 11-21-2007, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

That is your perspective. I think the threat of death is an excellent deterrent to keeping felons who know what they're doing is a felony outta my house.

It wasn't his house, there was no direct threat to him or his property.

Can I start hunting people down and shooting them in the back for cheating on their taxes?

1010011010 · 11-22-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

you might want to be a bit more consistent for the sake of argument

You may have the right to keep and bear a given arm, but you've got to GET ONE first. If there are none for sale in your price range and you have no capability to make it yourself... oh well. It would be a right to have them, not get them.

This is basically the same rationale that the NFA uses to restrict machinegun and destructive device ownership. It's not illegal to own because it's a machinegun. It's illegal to own because it has no one paid the taxes on it so it can't be legally bought or sold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Do you think that a fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launcher could kill 80,000 people and obliterate an entire city in the blink of an eye? Do you think a fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launcher could cause an epidemic of fatal disease? Granted, i'm no expert when it comes to fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launchers, but i find the idea pretty unlikely.

You run into a lot of megaton nuclear devices at garage sales? Mail order weaponized anthrax spores?

It would not be particularly difficult for a sufficiently motivated and financed individual or group of individuals to render entire cities uninhabitable and kill tens of thousands of people. Fortunately, people with sufficient motivation and finacing to do these things often have more structured goals than "WHOO! BLOW SOME SHIT UP!" so the question of private tactical nuclear device ownership would remain largely hypothetical whether there was a recognized private citizens Right to have one or not.

dksuddeth · 11-22-2007, 03:45 PM

Those who argue that the framers 'could not possibly have imagined the current weaponry' are missing the entire point of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The founders experienced 'first hand' the heavy handedness of a standing army and KNEW that ONLY free citizens had freedom and liberty as an interest at heart. Standing armies could most certainly be held to orders that abridged that freedom and liberty and it was the framers OBVIOUS intent to ensure that free citizens, who were NOT part of standing armies, federal or state, were armed with equal weaponry to that of any standing army so that free people could fight to remain free.

All arguments about owning WMD's are really idiotic arguments because the government would be cutting their own throat if they were to use WMDs against the civilian population.

The notion that 'well-regulated militia' meant national guard bears zero fruit, considering no such thing existed at the time, and knowing the fears of standing armies from the founders, could the 2nd ever be construed to think that there actually had to be written a 'right' that standing armies controlled by a central government needed to be ensured a right to keep and bear arms, is absolutely unfounded and ludicrous. it borders insanity.

Baraka_Guru · 11-22-2007, 04:02 PM

The whole idea of this law seems to me indicative of something quite frightening: the failure of American cities. Is Jane Jacobs right about urban renewal and usage zoning? Why are things so different in America than they are elsewhere? (e.g. Why is America's prison population per capita rivaled only by the likes of Russia?)

And now this? Leaving it to citizens to decide whether to use lethal force? This isn't a solution, it is an eye-opening experiment. There are a few others, I'm sure. Are there more coming down the pipe?

ring · 11-22-2007, 04:11 PM

Revolution and and civil war follow on the heals of an animal with too big an appetite.

dksuddeth · 11-22-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

The whole idea of this law seems to me indicative of something quite frightening: the failure of American cities. Is Jane Jacobs right about urban renewal and usage zoning? Why are things so different in America than they are elsewhere?

Because this would be America, and elsewhere would be elsewhere. For no difference than why is south africa different from norway. It's different, plain and simple. As far as the failure of american cities, the reason crime is rampant in the cities is because the people there refuse to be responsible for their own safety. They pawn it off to some sort of 'legitimate' agency, yet not a single one of these agencies is constitutionally obligated to provide for their safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

(e.g. Why is America's prison population per capita rivaled only by the likes of Russia?)

Because our government relentlessly pursues an unconstitution drug war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

And now this? Leaving it to citizens to decide whether to use lethal force? This isn't a solution, it is an eye-opening experiment. There are a few others, I'm sure. Are there more coming down the pipe?

who better to decide that my life is in danger than me? nobody else is going to be there at the time. Should I wait until after i'm dead before it's decided that I should have been able to use lethal force?

Baraka_Guru · 11-22-2007, 05:20 PM

Are you saying you want to change the constitution? Or are you selling some kind of libertarian quasi-anarchy?

...and South Africans and Norwegians aren't as different from Americans as you might think.

Plan9 · 11-22-2007, 06:01 PM

I'd say the US Constitution is fine. The 2nd Amendment was placed second for a reason... to help protect the 1st Amendment in an "Oh Shit" event AND to ensure the equality of the citizenry and the government through the following logic:

"A man without a firearm is a subject, a man with a firearm is a citizen."

This requires the utmost in responsibility and reasonableness to apply to the modern world. I fear that we have lost most of that responsibility.

So, yeah... I feel that the Constitution is in good shape. Our interpretation and application, however, leave a lot to be desired.

What was that bumper sticker I once saw?

Gun control works! Ask Nazi Germany, Soviet Russian, and the People's Republic of China!

"People's Republic" indeed.

...

It would be a little nutso to ban firearm ownership from lawful citizens on the grounds that we can't be trusted to own firearms. Such things often erode into other Mama Bear gummint issues. I don't need anybody holding my hand.

Real freedom means dealing with an unsafe world.

As many here often quote: Very rarely can you trade freedom for safety.

ring · 11-22-2007, 06:08 PM

How to pass on the torch of reasonableness?

How can we keep a person without a firearm between a subject..citizen to an eventual target.

Yeah.. what was that sticker??

Piece.

Baraka_Guru · 11-22-2007, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

"A man without a firearm is a subject, a man with a firearm is a citizen."

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
-Mao Tse-tung

Personally, I don't mind being one of the Queen's subjects.

Plan9 · 11-22-2007, 08:16 PM

If that logic follows... I'm subject to a primate from Texas.

Do you think living in another country would be advisable to trying to work the system?

...

My previous career involved carrying a firearm. My future career will involve carrying a firearm. They will be a constant companion for my working life.

Everybody else? Do your friggin' time and then whine.

filtherton · 11-22-2007, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1010011010

You may have the right to keep and bear a given arm, but you've got to GET ONE first. If there are none for sale in your price range and you have no capability to make it yourself... oh well. It would be a right to have them, not get them.

So in your mind it would be completely acceptable, from a legal standpoint, to simply outlaw, say, the sale and transport of guns since you wouldn't be technically prohibiting the right to "bear" arms?

Quote:

You run into a lot of megaton nuclear devices at garage sales? Mail order weaponized anthrax spores?

Nope, and it whether i do or not has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about. I said that that you don't hear a lot of pro 2nd folks lamenting the fact that they don't have a right to own nuclear weapons. You said that some do. I said that they're dumb. You said a belt fed grenade launcher was as effective a weapon as a nuclear bomb. I said it wasn't. I'm new to the idea that the second amendment has nothing to do with limiting the ability of folks to access weapons- it seems like such an obvious way to nullify the 2nd.

Quote:

It would not be particularly difficult for a sufficiently motivated and financed individual or group of individuals to render entire cities uninhabitable and kill tens of thousands of people. Fortunately, people with sufficient motivation and finacing to do these things often have more structured goals than "WHOO! BLOW SOME SHIT UP!" so the question of private tactical nuclear device ownership would remain largely hypothetical whether there was a recognized private citizens Right to have one or not.

Since no one has tried to blow up a city yet, so there would be no problems if nuclear weapons were widely available. That doesn't make sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Those who argue that the framers 'could not possibly have imagined the current weaponry' are missing the entire point of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The founders experienced 'first hand' the heavy handedness of a standing army and KNEW that ONLY free citizens had freedom and liberty as an interest at heart. Standing armies could most certainly be held to orders that abridged that freedom and liberty and it was the framers OBVIOUS intent to ensure that free citizens, who were NOT part of standing armies, federal or state, were armed with equal weaponry to that of any standing army so that free people could fight to remain free.

Okay, i could see that. So it's not about wmds, it's about apache helicopters and tanks. Doesn't sound good to me. First of all, it's hard enough to find a parking spot downtown as is, i can't imagine how much more difficult it would be if everybody had a tank. The other side of that, of course, is that if you had a tank you could park anywhere that someone else hadn't already parked their tank.

Wouldn't mutually assured destruction be the ultimate deterrence against tyranny?

Quote:

All arguments about owning WMD's are really idiotic arguments because the government would be cutting their own throat if they were to use WMDs against the civilian population.

Apparently 1010011010 knows people who think that the 2nd also applies to wmds. What's their problem?

dksuddeth · 11-23-2007, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

So in your mind it would be completely acceptable, from a legal standpoint, to simply outlaw, say, the sale and transport of guns since you wouldn't be technically prohibiting the right to "bear" arms?

transport? no. the sale? possibly. It's been done before and a totally liberal court has sided with the gov on an extremely radical interpretation of the commerce clause. Would that stop people from making their own? doubt it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Nope, and it whether i do or not has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about. I said that that you don't hear a lot of pro 2nd folks lamenting the fact that they don't have a right to own nuclear weapons. You said that some do. I said that they're dumb. You said a belt fed grenade launcher was as effective a weapon as a nuclear bomb. I said it wasn't. I'm new to the idea that the second amendment has nothing to do with limiting the ability of folks to access weapons- it seems like such an obvious way to nullify the 2nd.

At one time, 'shall not be infringed' meant exactly that. In todays PC world, however, we have a bunch of gun haters who have managed to redefine the bill of rights in to the bill of rights we think you should have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Okay, i could see that. So it's not about wmds, it's about apache helicopters and tanks. Doesn't sound good to me. First of all, it's hard enough to find a parking spot downtown as is, i can't imagine how much more difficult it would be if everybody had a tank. The other side of that, of course, is that if you had a tank you could park anywhere that someone else hadn't already parked their tank.

15 years ago, i'd have agreed with you. After WACO, I certainly think it should be in the realm of the ability to own helos and tanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Apparently 1010011010 knows people who think that the 2nd also applies to wmds. What's their problem?

I know some who think that also. Their reasoning can be sound, but they certainly aren't applying practical reasoning. I don't mean practical as in money and maintenance costs associated with it, but practical as in the fact that detonating a nuke is not self preservation/defense, which is really what the 2nd is about, preserving freedom, not practicing MAD.

1010011010 · 11-23-2007, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

So in your mind it would be completely acceptable, from a legal standpoint, to simply outlaw, say, the sale and transport of guns since you wouldn't be technically prohibiting the right to "bear" arms?

I'm not sure how we'd go about granting the government the legal authority to do such a thing. It might not be possible. It would certainly be against the spirit of protecting our rights under which our government draws authority, legal or not.

But, assuming we'd gotten to that point somehow, sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Since no one has tried to blow up a city yet, so there would be no problems if nuclear weapons were widely available. That doesn't make sense to me.

How "widely available" are fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launchers? Not very. I don't see why something orders of magnitude more expensive to acquire and maintain would become as commonplace as you seem to expect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

First of all, it's hard enough to find a parking spot downtown as is, i can't imagine how much more difficult it would be if everybody had a tank.

Why doesn't everyone have mobile armor? You can buy some, demilitarized of course. Could be that many folks don't want 'em (just as many people don't own guns) or don't want to spend that much money on them (just as many people don't own exotic guns).

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Apparently 1010011010 knows people who think that the 2nd also applies to wmds. What's their problem?

I also know people who think that the 1st also applies to unpopular speech.

I don't have a problem with there being a legal process (with various requirements on safeguarding, inspections, maintenance, storage, OQE, et al.) that allows folks who qualify to keep a nuclear device safely. I consider that preferable to them being acquired secretly and illegally.

11-13-2007, 11:05 AM	#123 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Yeah, Crompsie, but we don't need them because we have Socialists in power and Mounties to uphold said power. How else is it that we're still independent of the USA? You're ten times more likely to die from a hockey head injury than you are from a violent criminal. It's all good. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

11-20-2007, 07:53 PM	#143 (permalink)
Telluride Browncoat Location: California	I'm in favor of this sort of law. I believe that people have a right to use deadly force to defend their lives and property and the lives and property of others. __________________ "I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

11-22-2007, 03:45 PM	#147 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Those who argue that the framers 'could not possibly have imagined the current weaponry' are missing the entire point of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. The founders experienced 'first hand' the heavy handedness of a standing army and KNEW that ONLY free citizens had freedom and liberty as an interest at heart. Standing armies could most certainly be held to orders that abridged that freedom and liberty and it was the framers OBVIOUS intent to ensure that free citizens, who were NOT part of standing armies, federal or state, were armed with equal weaponry to that of any standing army so that free people could fight to remain free. All arguments about owning WMD's are really idiotic arguments because the government would be cutting their own throat if they were to use WMDs against the civilian population. The notion that 'well-regulated militia' meant national guard bears zero fruit, considering no such thing existed at the time, and knowing the fears of standing armies from the founders, could the 2nd ever be construed to think that there actually had to be written a 'right' that standing armies controlled by a central government needed to be ensured a right to keep and bear arms, is absolutely unfounded and ludicrous. it borders insanity. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

11-22-2007, 04:02 PM	#148 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	The whole idea of this law seems to me indicative of something quite frightening: the failure of American cities. Is Jane Jacobs right about urban renewal and usage zoning? Why are things so different in America than they are elsewhere? (e.g. Why is America's prison population per capita rivaled only by the likes of Russia?) And now this? Leaving it to citizens to decide whether to use lethal force? This isn't a solution, it is an eye-opening experiment. There are a few others, I'm sure. Are there more coming down the pipe? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

11-22-2007, 05:20 PM	#151 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Are you saying you want to change the constitution? Or are you selling some kind of libertarian quasi-anarchy? ...and South Africans and Norwegians aren't as different from Americans as you might think. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

11-22-2007, 04:11 PM	#149 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	Revolution and and civil war follow on the heals of an animal with too big an appetite.

11-22-2007, 06:01 PM	#152 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	I'd say the US Constitution is fine. The 2nd Amendment was placed second for a reason... to help protect the 1st Amendment in an "Oh Shit" event AND to ensure the equality of the citizenry and the government through the following logic: "A man without a firearm is a subject, a man with a firearm is a citizen." This requires the utmost in responsibility and reasonableness to apply to the modern world. I fear that we have lost most of that responsibility. So, yeah... I feel that the Constitution is in good shape. Our interpretation and application, however, leave a lot to be desired. What was that bumper sticker I once saw? Gun control works! Ask Nazi Germany, Soviet Russian, and the People's Republic of China! "People's Republic" indeed. ... It would be a little nutso to ban firearm ownership from lawful citizens on the grounds that we can't be trusted to own firearms. Such things often erode into other Mama Bear gummint issues. I don't need anybody holding my hand. Real freedom means dealing with an unsafe world. As many here often quote: Very rarely can you trade freedom for safety. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 11-22-2007 at 06:06 PM..

11-22-2007, 06:08 PM	#153 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	How to pass on the torch of reasonableness? How can we keep a person without a firearm between a subject..citizen to an eventual target. Yeah.. what was that sticker?? Piece.

11-22-2007, 08:16 PM	#155 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	If that logic follows... I'm subject to a primate from Texas. Do you think living in another country would be advisable to trying to work the system? ... My previous career involved carrying a firearm. My future career will involve carrying a firearm. They will be a constant companion for my working life. Everybody else? Do your friggin' time and then whine. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."