Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2571840)

clearly not. but again, he only hurt himself. Now, had he hit someone else, by all means charge him with a crime of negligence or more. I've no problem with that at all.

you should already know my feelings on the drug war. I feel for this guy and I hope that something can be done for him.




this is a typical response from someone not that familiar with guns and the people that know how to handle them. That can be remedied, should you choose to actually do so. MOST gun owners react better than that. You would know this if you got to know some of them.

Originally Posted by Crompsin (Post 2571850)

Apparently nobody has read the laws that are already on the book.

The laws that 99% of gun owners follow without question.

Maybe they should take a class and get educated or something.

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2571852)

no gun will make you anything but what you are anyway but now you have a gun. you are equally changed by your choice of cutlery, your choice of toilet paper, your choice of components for your sound system. if you think the commodities you accumulate define who you are and what you think, you shouldn't worry about freedom: you've already given it away.

Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2571861)

care to back that 99% stat up with a link?

Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2571849)

crompsin, you realize that willravel is going to debunk your post with the slippery slope fallacy, right? because that would never happen here, or anywhere.

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2571901)

I particularly enjoy the spectacular ballet that occurs when someone places arbitrary limitations on ostensibly absolute rights (i.e. anything that can be carried is okay, except biological weapons and suitcase nukes) without acknowledging that they've just limited an absolute right. The second amendment grants absolute rights, except for these I have rather arbitrarily designated as being outside the scope of its rights-granting shroud of rights granting.

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2571901)

I think the second amendment is great because it serves as such a potent example of how useless the founders were with respect to making their intentions clear (or how difficult it is to write law that will apply well in two hundred years).

I don't think people shouldn't have guns. I just think that either way, the second amendment is poorly written, and wouldn't pass muster in a 10th grade english class. If the majority of the people want guns, they should pass a fucking amendment to clarify the second amendment and shut the fuck up already.

Originally Posted by Slims (Post 2571913)

Walter, if you are going to post in your own thread, then take some time and put forward a better argument.

The founding fathers had no intention of being vague. They deliberately left a lot of things unsaid, and precedent was supposed to clarify issues that had not come up before, rather than to reinterpret what is clearly written in the constitution. Additionally I am drunk and am going to have to continue this when I am capable of formulating words and such...

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak (Post 2571912)

You'll have to forgive me for waxing philosophic but Im in the middle studying Shari'a Law for a final tomorrow. Im finding the use of intended language so as to allow for interpretation to be facinating. Please forgive the following bullshit:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2571931)

I do think that the loudest elements on both sides are self serving and full of shit.

Originally Posted by Crompsin (Post 2572010)

The happy medium is what we're really arguing over.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2570785)

After having read the federalist/anti-federalist papers, I pondered two conclusions about the Second Amendment.

One, that the 2nd Amendment was a concession by the federalists to give confidence to the anti-federalists that firearms in the hands of the people would never be restricted. That the 'well regulated militia' was a unifying force made up of the people to ensure freedom and security from an overbearing central government. Remember that these people had experienced firsthand oppression by the military arm of their king.

Two, that the federalists were adamant that the security of a free state/nation REQUIRED a standing army, or a 'well regulated militia', but that to guarantee that the people would never be subject to future oppression from this standing army, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would never be infringed so that their power would be greater than the standing army, should it be necessary.

Since the ratification of the 13th Amendment, It has been accepted that the bill of rights only restricts the federal government and that the 14th Amendment applies those restrictions to the states as well ONLY WHEN the USSC incorporates that right under the 14th. This makes little sense considering that the entrance of a state in to the union is a two way contract with the union and the state, the state accepting the terms of the constitution and the union protecting the rights of the people in that new state. Prior to the slaughterhouse cases, I know of no such USSC case that even hinted that the bill of rights didn't apply to the states as well.



the people is no more collective in the 2nd than it is in the 1st, 4th, 5th, or 9th.

One must remember that the constitution is not an outline of the rights that belong to the people, but a legal document that enumerates specific powers that the federal government is given. The bill of rights was the concession to ensure that certain rights would NEVER be trod upon by the central government, something that the founders were all too familiar with. That is why it absolutey galls me to hear people say that rights are not absolute, that they all are allowed limitations and restrictions. This was a judicial theory that justice Holmes put forth in 1919 concerning a case about the espionage act and it's implications against free speech. Until then, it was considered that rights were absolute or they were not rights.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 02 : 59 : 53-----
are you saying that madison, hamilton, and others who were considered scholars were actually high school dropouts?

Those able bodied males were citizens though, not regular military. Does that negate a right of the people then?

I vehemently disagree that the founders wanted the courts to interpret laws based on the future. The founders realized that change was inevitable and put in a very exact method of amending the constitution if needs be changed.


great, is reasonable limits going to one day be single shot muskets again? bows and arrows?

when will people realize that if you put the direction of your lives and rights in the hands of government, they will become severely limited.

Originally Posted by Crompsin (Post 2572010)

Praise the lord! Neither point is viable.

The happy medium is what we're really arguing over.

(since no pro-gun guy here actually suggested the ridiculous notion of zero restrictions on "weapon" ownership)

Originally Posted by Crompsin (Post 2572010)

Praise the lord! Neither point is viable.

The happy medium is what we're really arguing over.

(since no pro-gun guy here actually suggested the ridiculous notion of zero restrictions on "weapon" ownership)

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2572065)

um...this makes no sense. even at a grammatical level, it makes no sense. "the people" is plural. it is collective. it is necessarily collective. i suppose you can twist it around to function as a singular==but that's private language stuff, the sort of thing that you read about in transcripts of conversations amongst schizophrenics.

from the oed, the etymology of the term "the people"



i suppose that if you can erase the 21st century and replace it with the 18th, you can also erase the linguistic conventions of the 18th and replace them with speculative conventions from the pre 15th century. why not, since at this level there is no distinction between "the original sense" and "playing fast and loose"---both converge of "i see what i want to see."

Originally Posted by KirStang (Post 2571842)

http://www.jimsykes.com/images/image.jpg

Hee hee.

Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2575421)

I wish there was an accurate statistic saying what % of gun owners who own a firearm for home/self protection have ever had to use it in that manner. Not that it would prove one side or the other as "right"....I'm just curious how often guns are actually used for the reasons they were purchased

Also, a breakdown of how many people have guns JUST for self protection vs. those who also shoot at ranges, hunt, collect, etc.

Originally Posted by Tully Mars (Post 2575457)

What relevance would that statistic have? Being an avid boater I've probably owned well over a 100 life jackets. Of those I've had to use -0-. Same thing with fire extinguishers, owned several only used one once at home.


If you purchase something like this for protection you do so hoping you never have to use it. Kind of like a "better to have and not need, then need and not have" type thing.

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak (Post 2570346)

The question is what to believe?

Originally Posted by Telluride (Post 2580647)

Here is what I believe:

Obama and many of his fans HOPE to confiscate my guns.

I'm stocking up on ammo because I intend to CHANGE their minds.

:thumbsup:

Originally Posted by shakran (Post 2580654)

Spoken like a true Branch Davidian.

The argument of "guns to protect us from an oppressive government" has been rendered stupid and moot by those making it. The government is oppressive. Warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, no-fly lists, unwarranted search and seizures if you're within 2 hours of a border, and "free speech zones" weren't enough to make you rise up against this government, but if you think they're going to try to take away your (completely and utterly ineffective against the toys the goverment has) popguns away you're ready to go out shooting?

Give me a break.