WOLVERINES!
=p

i wondered a while ago in this thread why it is that the discussion, such as it is, seems to require stereotypes to proceed. i still don't understand it's function, but there's more of it now.

so why is it that this particular topic seems to require that stereotypes such a role?

Stereotypes are useful when one wants to avoid discussion.

The British would like to have their guns back.

So what?

Just another attempt to divert the discussion from the fact that there is nothing to support the fear mongering expressed in the OP (and many subsequent posts by the gun crowd) that Obama will be taking away your guns.

By every measure, most Americans want and support some level of gun control within the confines of the "right to bear arms"...the polling data makes that pretty clear.

But perhaps some would rather cling to a belief that the will of the majority shouldnt matter in our representative democracy.

A CNN poll = a poll by a far left network with skewed results. There is many more polls that state most people believe that there is enough laws already and we should ENFORCE the laws presently on the books.

I also think the fact that Britain now realizes it's mistakes and is trying to change things should be a lesson to us here in the States.

lollololololololol

You mean like Gallup, Ipsos, or maybe Harris? I wonder where we could dig those numbers up....

What most Americans want is irrelevant. The Constitution guarantees a right to bear arms, and Obama has posted his intention to severely curtail that right on the whitehous.gov website.

The Bill of Rights was put in place, in part, to prevent the "will of the majority" from denying rights to the minority. The preamble to the bill of rights states that the bill of rights simply enumerates rights which are inalienable and no government has the right to take away (nor does a majority of the population). An opinion poll has no impact on that whatsoever.

What Americans want is absolutely NOT irrelevant...it is at the heart of a representative democracy...as long as it respects the Constitutional rights of the minority.

There is NO absolute right to bear arms...that has been decided.

The extent to which that right can be restricted or regulated is a matter for the "people" to express their will, the legislature to act, and the judiciary to be the final ejudicator.

Oh..and polls are another expression of opinion...just as a protest march.

From the beginning of the film: These are a tiny, TINY minority of people who live in the countryside and like torturing foxes in a manner which if urbanites did likewise to urban foxes, they'd be charged with animal cruelty instantly. Gun nuts, not real sportsmen or farmers, tagged onto that movement by characterising their lust for unregulated gun ownership as a 'traditional right'.

Horseshit.

You can find loons in every society and those interviewed in the film most certainly fall in that category.

The solution to the gun problem is more guns. Fantastic.

It is PERFECTLY within the law in the UK to own a gun... you need a police-issued licence (two referees and a mental health check up) and to either leave your gun in a sports club OR in your own home - within an accredited gun safe. My family now live in a rural area and many people own guns out there.

Tony Martin, the case mentioned, shot two men in the back as they were running away from his home, killing one. As he mentions, it was the third time he'd been burgled that year and he's quoted, though I can't find it atm, as saying something along the lines of 'i was going to make damn sure it wasn't happening again.'.

In other words, he set out to do harm, with malice aforethought and killed a man.

Murder.

The Daily Mail - which was an avid fan of fascism back in those heady days of the 30's and still operate on an editorial policy of feeding their readers a dose of daily hate - headed a campaign of misrepresentation in the media which eventually led to political pressure and this disgusting man, a murderer, having his case reviewed.

If you're going to make a case for reviewing gun laws, then putting Mr Martin out front is not the best way to go about it... After all... he had a gun, so what's the point about brits wanting their guns again? huh?

The British people do not want more guns in the UK, they want the elements of society that fuel gun ownership, availability and use reduced or eliminated. More and more people are starting to wrestle with the idea of legalising drugs, in the face of a media that doesn't really put over anything but wholly negative drug stories, and removing the vast majority of it and its related crimes, where most gun crime in the UK stems from.

American show goes over to a foreign land, picks out a handful of nuts and misrepresents them as popular opinion. My, that's a novelty. :shakehead:

Ugh. Nevermind. Legislators will hear from gun owners if they push another AWB.

Moderate gun controls? Ok. Demonizing 'hi-capacity magazines' and 'Bayonet lugs?'....wtf.

A bill in the works right now?

Can you provide a bill number please.

Who is the prime sponsor? other co-sponsors?

Eat your heart out.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...:h45ih.txt.pdf

A bill that has no co-sponsors and wont have a chance in hell of getting a hearing w/o co-sponsors. In effect, a bill that is DOA.

Do you have any idea how many bill are introduced that get absolutely no where....something along the lines of 95% of all bills introduced.

Meh, I see it as opening the gates towards another AWB.

I'm still amazed at how little the population knows about guns, yet feel strongly enough towards it to support a ban.

The last attempt at an AWB had a handful of supporters in the House and NO companion bill in the Senate. It was DOA.

I agree that a very small minority of members of Congress have "banning guns" on their agenda and such bills will be introduced every session...and it will be DOA again.

No member of Congress can be prevented from introducing a bill....there are 10,000+ bills (and resolutions) introduced each session of Congress....at best, maybe 100-200 are enacted.

There are bills introduce every session to make Christianity the official religion of the US.

As a DC resident, I am not worried about the bill that we see every other year to cede Washington, DC back to Maryland.

Dennis Kucinich will introduce his annual bill to create a cabinet level Department of Peace.

Objective observers take these for what they are.

unfortunately, the NRA, although it knows the truth about the recent gun bills as well as any inside observer, is not objective and uses these "no-chance/doa" bills and grossly exaggerations their remotest (zero) possibility of passage for fund raising purposes.

I wonder how "DOA" they'll be when Schumer, Feinstein, McCarthy or Reid attached them to a Bailout bill, or the 2010 Defense Appropriations, or some other "must-pass" piece of legislation as a "rider?" That's how the Firearm Owners Protection Act was used, behind the scenes, to kill civilian-legal machinegun manufacture in May of 1986. The rider was attached, a vote was held in the middle of the night, and by the time anyone who could/would have objected was allowed to -read- the amended legislation, it'd already been passed in the dead of night, just like a congressional pay raise.

The mere existence of these bills is a serious threat, since any of them could be attached in that same manner at any time.

Yeah, screw all this legislation and the economy. Let economy fix itself and I figure anyone trained by the US military is probably able to fend for themselves. I mean if there's even a slight possibility someone might try to keep me from buy a machine gun I'd rather the whole country go to hell before that happens.

You are aware that the only person to ever commit a crime with a legally-owned machinegun was a cop, right? And that it's only happened -once- since the NFA registry was begun in 1934?

And this is relevant how?

Sorry, but you really dont understand the rules of the House or the Senate. Any "substantial" amendment passed by one house, even in the middle of the night, still has to be approved by the other house....so in fact, one house in Congress always has the time to review any of these "midnight" amendments.

It cant happen the way you described and I doubt that it did in 1986, but I'm not interested in wasting my time to check the Record of 20+ years ago.

(added: a quick check of the Record...the Senate passed a version.....the House amended it (at night) and sent it back to the Senate where it sat for nearly a month, giving every Senator plenty of time to read the amendment...it was then debated for a day and passed by the Senate.......it looks to me like your version of what happened in 1986 is another one of those NRA myths!)

And the last time something marginally comparable to attaching an AWB (or anything gun related) to a defense appropriation bill was attempted in the Senate with a proposed amendment (what you call a "rider") to the Dept of Homeland Security Appropriations bill in 06 to allow for the confiscation of weapons during a "state of emergency" and it was defeated 84-16, with Obama voting with the majority.

That there is a problem, isn't it? From the beginning of this country, it was a representative democracy, or a republic, so that the majority could NOT limit or deny the rights of a minority.
-----Added 1/2/2009 at 02 : 54 : 34-----
and just like the dred scott decision or kelo decision, this is fatally wrong. People who fear the freedom of others like using the 'no right is absolute' craptastic argument to limit the rights of others they don't like, plain and simple. Because of the overreaching decision making no right absolute, it now comes down to whether a majority of the people feel that a right isn't limited enough. Theoretically, it could come down to 'shall not be infringed' means as long as you carry pepper spray, you're armed, therefore your right to bear arms is not infringed.

'no right is absolute' is probably the most overreaching and abusive judicial precedent ever set in our history

The Supreme Court decision in this case differs from your statement. It is now a matter of record, and legal precedent.

supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation

You conveniently left out this section from the same decision:

Not conveniently left out, it was simply the opinion of a dissenting judge. The decision was 5-4 and the result is as I posted it.



Larry

No...the opinion was part (Held 2.) of Scalia's decision writing for the court. The minority opinion is entirely separate.

We can post the entire syllabus if you wish but it does not change the decision in the case. The wording states precisely that a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for the lawful protection and in the defense of self, family and property.


Nobody really needs a .50 caliber Barret rifle to deter theives, but it works. We don't need military style, high capacity rifles either. They serve no purpose at all in the home, the sport of shooting, or in hunting game for food. These are not facts, they are simply my opinions on those weapons, other may differ. Along those same lines, we don't really need 200 channels of television when 2 or 3 will do just fine, right? We don't need anything at all, aside the most basic necessities for survival, but then we're supposed to be a bit more civilized than monkeys, right?

The problem is that a ban on any single type of weapon is legal precedent for panty waisted knuckleheads to use as fodder for bans on anything else that they're afraid of, or don't understand. People that don't want the personal responsibility that comes with liberty and freedom can move to France if they wish.

My point is that our rights, and freedom to exercise those rights, made this country what is once was, and could be again. If we continue to cower in fear, plant our heads in the sands of ignorance, and allow the few to impose their will upon the many we will most certainly cease to be citizens and become subjects of the same iron fisted oppression that sparked the beginning of the revolution.

So in closing this argument, your statement that the second ammendment does not provide an absolute right to bear arms is false. You may wish for the opposite to be true but, wishes aren't reality.



Larry

You don't really need an M-1A2 SEP Abrams... and you can't have one. You really don't need a M2HB heavy machine gun... and you can't have one. You may wish for the opposite to be true but, wishes aren't reality.

Ahem, actually, if you are willing to cough up the dough, you can have them...perhaps not an Abrams because there are none being made for civilains right now, but other tanks and definately an M2.

In fact, the reality at the moment is the Supreme Court's decision in its entirety and not simply the portions of the decision held by the Court with which you agree.

And that includes...."It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

Read my post where I stated my opinion against such lunatic frivolity and try to make your point again. :)



-----Added 2/2/2009 at 09 : 45 : 11-----
I didn't think it would be necessary to point out that convicted felons shouldn't be allowed to own guns or that people shouldn't be allowed carry them into the McDonalds playground for show and tell with toddlers. :confused:



Larry

It appeared necessary because of your insistence that the right to bear arms is absolute..and now, in this post, you recognize that it isnt absolute.

Thank you!

Not being made for civilians you say? How odd.

And yes given the right paperwork one might be able to buy an M2 full auto but you have admit there are arms you can not buy, right?
-----Added 2/2/2009 at 10 : 12 : 23-----
I don't even know what your opinion or point is at this point. It seems to be contradicting itself.

My point is you are not legally able to buy any weapon or weapons system you want.

The argument has always been that the second amendment was not a right given to citizens and that it only applied to members of the armed forces (militia), and then only in performance of their duty. That is a wrongheaded assupmtion and, inspite of evidence to the contrary, you still maintain it.

I simply stated that the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, in reference to ordinary citizens purchasing, registering and keeping a firearm, and it is. I assumed that anybody here would understand my inferred application of the ammendment and the ruling of the court.

I never implied that ordinary folks have, or should have the right, to buy operational tanks, fully automatic weapons, or ridiculously large weapons. The kind that serve no purpose in the defense of your family, home or property. I stated that the exact opposite was my opinion, also the result of any reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment, but, you all conveniently ignore that with every reply you make.

I have also stated that the downside with the right to keep and bear arms is that almost any written/legal restriction on the type of weapon a citizen is "allowed" to purchase and keep is an open door to more restriction and therefore, restricted liberty. I maintain that the current,"common sense" laws preventing the purchase of de-commissioned battleships, and such armament, do what they were written to do, enforce the use of common sense.

You can't just go the gun store and buy the types of weapons that we all know to be useless outside of a military action. RPG's, surface to air missiles and such are just off limits to us, and for good reason. While you can buy a tank, it's weapons are rendered inoperative. It's just a huge lump of mobile metal with an engine. So, if some nut wants to buy a tank and park it in his front yard, that's his life, not mine. It's his choice, even if it is stupid. I'd rather a loon have his tank, and subsequent public ridicule, and keep my rights, liberty, and freedom intact.

By the way, I'm not a gun nut with an arsenal that rivals the local law enforcement, I'm just an American.


Larry

PS,
I love this forum.:thumbsup:

so is the right absolute or not? you say it is, but then list all of the arms that shouldn't be allowed. pick one

Some of the most ardent protesters posting in this thread aren't natural born US citizens or even US citizens and apparently the idea of freedom to purchase and own a firearm simply because you choose to is difficult to grasp.

We can only hope the unarmed European socialist experiment will be over before the idealogy completely transcends the big pond.

You used the "r" word....registering! I call "infringement"!
-----Added 3/2/2009 at 06 : 32 : 48-----
Keep hope alive!

..