The Three Biggest Threats to Gun Rights - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Plan9 · 10-08-2010, 03:20 AM

Quote:

When you think of the people who want to take your basic American right to shoot cans with an AR and a 100 round C-Mag, the usual culprits are damn liberals, Obama, those Brady idiots, and the crooked ATF that's out to get you. While all of those groups would certainly love it if you melted your collection, took up yoga, and renounced pumpkin and can shooting forever, their tired rhetoric is fairly ineffective these days. The groups I will talk about are far more dangerous than loudmouth lobbyists, as these threats come from inside the firearms world, and are deeply ingrained into it. These people discredit honest gun owners, and do their best to make the gun owning community live up to the stereotypes the gun grabbers love to showcase in their arguments. As a smart, active firearms enthusiast it is your duty to identify and speak out against these people that are mindlessly dragging us down and eroding our rights.

Threat #3 - Obese Carry Advocates

This kind of hypocrisy undermines one of the core values of the right to bear argument, the ability to defend yourself with a firearm. All over the net you will find these behemoths instructing you on how to conceal your .460 S&W under an XXL "Co-ed Naked Bass Fishing Team" T-shirt. These people apparently value their lives so much as to carry a firearm in their low crime Midwestern town, where the chances of being mugged are roughly the same of being attacked by an elephant, yet they ignore heart disease, which kills 40% of people in America? One can't help but question their motives here, especially to a gun grabber that probably despises McDonald's every bit as much as barrel shrouds and Black Talons.

Threat #2 - The Open Carry Movement

I've already gone on too long about this group and their crusade to lose the right to carry, so I'll just do a quick refresher. The worst part of this group as it consists largely of people that also fall into threat #3 and threat #1. The carrying of firearms in suburban Starbucks is on the same level as going into the same Starbucks and shouting racism/obscenities at the top of your lungs in an attempt to retain your 1st Amendment rights. All either can do is annoy people and cause a scene, as you can't gain a right you already have. A right unexercised is a right lost? Go ahead and ask the next OCer you see to explain the 3rd amendment for you, ask him what he is doing to not lose that right, and you will quickly realize they didn't read that far in the Bill of Rights.

Threat #1 - The Uneducated

While these people are a detriment to any cause no matter what side they fall on, they are particularly bad within the firearms community, as they are often the loudest. Most of the bomb throwing extremists fall into this category, and you will often find them labeling anyone who doesn't agree with them a "typical liberal" while reading ridiculously obvious pro-gun propaganda that is every bit as bad as something Michael Moore or the Brady Bunch would come up with. This polarizing of the argument will be the ultimate downfall of gun rights, as it attempts to force the middle to the outside, instead of being a live and let live person that may not be interested in firearms, but wouldn't want to remove that right. Wave a gun in their face at Starbucks or repeatedly tell them they will be killed by a home intruder unless they have a gun and guess which way they are going to sway in the poll booth.

So what can you do as an intelligent, honest gun owner that can see that there is more to the issue than the black and white the extremists want to portray? Don't sit back, tell these idiots within our own community to keep their mouths shut, and show the other side that the majority of the gun owning community are normal, educated people that enjoy guns for sport and recreation, and may choose to use them as protection. The majority of the community aren't 300 pound men wearing cowboy hats and AR-15s to city council meetings, and it's our duty to portray gun owners as the normal, level headed people that we are.

- Another babbling SAKIT Blogger-author that calls himself "Heartbreaker"

...

I tend to agree with most of his points (vast generalizations). Especially the part where he's hating on fat people as if that's a criteria for stupidity.

uncle phil · 10-08-2010, 03:31 AM

damn, someone from the "cold, dead fingers" crowd who makes sense...

and, if a soldier asked me nicely to stay in my place temporarily, i'd probably say 'yes,' wartime or not...

Plan9 · 10-08-2010, 06:00 AM

So, uh, can I stay on your couch?

dksuddeth · 10-08-2010, 07:14 AM

yet another piece of mind oriented fiction to somehow stress to people that 'yes, you have that right, but you shouldn't exercise it' bullshit. I want my 2 minutes back.

KirStang · 10-08-2010, 08:08 AM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...discrimination

Plan9 · 10-08-2010, 08:30 AM

C'mon, DK. Go read the two articles on Open Carry (holy noises) and tell us how you really feel.

dksuddeth · 10-08-2010, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9

C'mon, DK. Go read the two articles on Open Carry (holy noises) and tell us how you really feel.

I can't do that and maintain the minimal good behavior standards necessary to participate on this forum.

Slims · 10-08-2010, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle phil

damn, someone from the "cold, dead fingers" crowd who makes sense...

and, if a soldier asked me nicely to stay in my place temporarily, i'd probably say 'yes,' wartime or not...

Me too, provided 1: it's voluntary on my part and 2: said soldier isn't responsible for 'pacifying' me.

I think the biggest dangers to gun-rights are as follows:

1: Illiteracy or it's near equivalent. If you understand what a 'preamble' is and what 'the people' means then the 2'nd Amendment is crystal clear. You don't have to like what is written to read it correctly.

2: Apathy: If you feel safe and don't exercise (or at least work to maintain) your rights you will lose them. Most people just don't care because they don't see having to use a firearm for violence as likely to occur....or having to speak out against a totalitarian government.....or assembling to organize against one.....etc. Most people just don't care.

3: A pacified public that thinks the world is a truly safe place.

I agree with the points Plan9 posted as hurting the gun-rights 'political' movement, but it shouldn't have in impact on our ability to exercise our rights.

For instance, I personally don't think it would be 'constitutional' to pass a constitutional amendment removing any among the bill of rights. I believe this to be the case because the constitution itself states that the bill of rights consists of inalienable rights....Thus they cannot be taken away, even through an amendment process.

They can, however, be restricted illegally by the ignorant and willfully corrupt...

KirStang · 10-08-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

Me too, provided 1: it's voluntary on my part and 2: said soldier isn't responsible for 'pacifying' me.

I think the biggest dangers to gun-rights are as follows:

1: Illiteracy or it's near equivalent. If you understand what a 'preamble' is and what 'the people' means then the 2'nd Amendment is crystal clear. You don't have to like what is written to read it correctly.

Quote:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

All legal acrobatics aside, a plain reading of the language is pretty clear. It's when interests and politics get involved that things get muddied.

Walt · 10-08-2010, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

All legal acrobatics aside, a plain reading of the language is pretty clear.

Agreed.

uncle phil · 10-08-2010, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9

So, uh, can I stay on your couch?

anytime, buddy...

KirStang · 10-08-2010, 02:46 PM

Strange Famous · 10-08-2010, 03:55 PM

There is only one threat and one choice that I see

The right to own and bear guns is legally entitled in the USA. This right results in a number of deaths each year that would not occur if the right does not exist.

As a democracy, America must decide and does decide if this right is worth these deaths... "gun rights" will be revoked when the people decide differently, or conditions force the state to take the decision out of the people's hands.

_

Those who are passionate about the right to own the means of destruction will talk of the right of self defence

Those of us who look in from the outside will wonder how a country that enshrines freedom more than any other finds it acceptable that it is a usual situation for a parking ticket to be issued at gun point.

uncle phil · 10-08-2010, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

Those who are passionate about the right to own the means of destruction will talk of the right of self defence

Those of us who look in from the outside will wonder how a country that enshrines freedom more than any other finds it acceptable that it is a usual situation for a parking ticket to be issued at gun point.

???

KirStang · 10-08-2010, 04:31 PM

Perhaps ignorance is the biggest threat to the Second Amendment.

The_Dunedan · 10-08-2010, 04:32 PM

So...the best way to prevent my culture from being destroyed is by suborning certain aspects of that culture to the irrational desires and phobias of those who wish to destroy it? Shall I ask Mrs. Parks to dye her skin white next? Or Mr. Cooper to marry a woman and father children on her? After all; racists and homophobes might be made uncomfortable by Mrs. Parks' blackness or Mr. Cooper's gayitude.

To paraphrase Mr. Churchill: he who appeases a Tiger does so in the vain hope that the Tiger will eat him -last-.

I am a frequent practitioner of open carry. Which Amendment would you like to quiz me on? Where did I leave my beer-gut, 'cause it a'int on mah belleh...oh yeah, I don't have a beer-gut, I hold two University degrees, am drunkenly multilingual and have lived for extended periods in places where nobody speaks English.

This "article" is nothing but a call to surrender, penned by a hopeless Fudd who appears to have had his brain replaced by a Brady Bunch "keeper." If we lose our gun rights, or any other Civil Right, in this country it will be because of gutless, compromise-happy pissants like Mr. Heartbreaker here who sold them all off a piece at a time in the name of not making anti-Rights jerkoffs like Mark Potok "uncomfortable."

Oh, and Strange:

Quote:

This right results in a number of deaths each year that would not occur if the right does not exist.

Horseshit. If this was the case, Mexico, Russia, Brazil and South Africa would be a great deal safer than they are. Likewise Chicago, Washington DC, and London. Back in the Real World, the UK is the most violent country in the developed world (per the UN) with the fastest-rising rate of violent crime in the developed world (per the UN) and a person in Scotland is 4x more likely than an American to be robbed by violence, assaulted, or raped (per the UN). South Africa and Mexico, with some of the strictest victim-disarmament laws in existence, are two of the most violent countries on Earth. And as for Russia...whoo boy.

Quote:

As a democracy, America must decide

America is -not- a Democracy. America is a Constitutional Republic, and is defined as such in our Constitution which is the supreme Law Of The Land. Learn the difference.

Quote:

finds it acceptable that it is a usual situation for a parking ticket to be issued at gun point.

Do a little reading and research sometime, when you can spare a minute, and you'll find that the "freedom uber alles" crowd (myself among them) are the ones decrying and condemning such behavior. Your fellow leftists (with a healthy splattering of Arpaio-ite right-collectivists thrown in) are the ones defending such strongarm Police tactics. Your fellow leftists are also the ones consistently lobbying for early releases, shortened sentences for violent crimes, and the disarmament of the people these criminals prey on: so if cops are scared of traffic stops guess what? It's because y'all lobbied to let Biilly The Crip out of jail early so he could get back to his usual occupations of theft, rape, and murder while simultaneously lessening the likelihood that Billy's next victim would be able to solve the problem permanently. So don't blame the gun-rights crowd for that, Strange: your fellow Lefties are the one who ensured this dismal outcome.

Baraka_Guru · 10-08-2010, 04:57 PM

I'm following this thread with interest, though I have no strong position on it. I find it interesting to think about the differences between understanding one's rights and the exercise thereof by different means to different ends.

However, this little bit stuck out at me, and I wanted a clarification:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

America is -not- a Democracy. America is a Constitutional Republic, and is defined as such in our Constitution which is the supreme Law Of The Land. Learn the difference.

Isn't it the case that America has aspects of a representative democracy via the presidential system under the constitutional republic? There is after all an election process, elected representatives of the people, and even an amendment process for the Constitution.

I figure the process is elaborate and requires a lot of support, but constitutional amendments imply a democratic process via elected representatives, do they not?

The_Dunedan · 10-08-2010, 05:05 PM

Correct. However, in a Republic the power of democratic initiative is tempered by what we in the US terms "Checks and balances*" between branches of government which share no authority or powers, and which are intended to be intensely adversarial. Furthermore, in a Republic the ability of the majority to exercise democratic franchise is limited by a body of codified laws specific to that purpose which are difficult to change or alter, and which are -intended- to be easily understood and (absent aforementioned difficult changes) permanent.

A Republic may therefore be loosely defined as a sub-type or relative of democracy. However, in a Democracy the power of the Mob, of the uninformed and easily-misled majority (because any Group is only as smart as it's stupidest member) is essentially unchecked. Moreover, in a Republic the Right of Franchise is typically extended only to those with extensive and hard-to-sever ties to a given community (landowners) and those who have indicated an interest in serving the interests of the Body Politic and the Republic itself (the so-called Starship Troopers scenario). This is intended to keep laws from being made or monies from being spent for "light and transient causes," as Mr. Jefferson put it, and to keep people who will -not- be affected by a given law from passing laws which will adversely affect their neighbors.

*Not sure if y'all have a different term?

Baraka_Guru · 10-08-2010, 05:23 PM

It's a bit challenging to keep track of. The Canadian government, like many other governments, also has a system with built-in separation of powers. In our case it's the differences between the judiciary, the Senate, the House of Commons, and the Crown. Within those groupings you get the expected three branches of government: the judicial, the legislative, and the executive.

Probably the biggest difference between our two systems lies in the differences between the presidential system and the parliamentary system, which is largely a structural matter in terms of how representatives are elected/appointed and how they act.

We're also technically a constitutional monarchy, which means we too are limited by a constitution, and so we understand the difficulty undertaken to make any changes to the top-level document. For example, if we wanted to do away with the remnants of the monarchy and become an actual republic, we'd need to open up the constitution to do so. But that's like opening up a can of worms, as it invites other interests because, hey, while we're at it....

Anyway, enough of the threadjack. I don't see the U.S. Constitution feasibly changing anytime soon. I'm not sure if that's what Strange was implying, or whether he was implying that federal law would limit the right. Either way, it seems a bit far fetched. The culture of being armed is too ingrained I think.

The_Dunedan · 10-08-2010, 07:27 PM

Look, I agree that idiots in general are a problem within the gun community. Trust me. But it's ridiculous for the author of this article to make the generalizations and accusations that he/she does. Likewise I equally detest those who love their guns but are ignorant of the Constitution. However I and a great many other gun-owners in the US are well-educated, politically aware people working towards concrete coherent ends: the cultural normalisation or at least acceptance of -all- Constitutional and Human Rights for -all- people.

Willravel · 10-08-2010, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Threat #3 - Obese Carry Advocates

This kind of hypocrisy undermines one of the core values of the right to bear argument, the ability to defend yourself with a firearm. All over the net you will find these behemoths instructing you on how to conceal your .460 S&W under an XXL "Co-ed Naked Bass Fishing Team" T-shirt. These people apparently value their lives so much as to carry a firearm in their low crime Midwestern town, where the chances of being mugged are roughly the same of being attacked by an elephant, yet they ignore heart disease, which kills 40% of people in America? One can't help but question their motives here, especially to a gun grabber that probably despises McDonald's every bit as much as barrel shrouds and Black Talons.

Customer: "Good morrow, shop keep. Might I trouble you for a Glock this fine day?"
Gun Store Proprietor: "Surly, my good sir! First I must ask for you to sign this form and then return three days hence for the weapon... but alas! My fine lad, you seem a bit portly if I may be so bold. Might I inquire as to your body fat percentage?"
Customer: "You might, shop keep, but for what reason?"
Gun Store Proprietor: "The risk you seem to face isn't from an armed enemy but rather from the deadly foe LDL cholesterol! I fear you shall not find armament from danger here this day. I respectfully suggest you take your currency and find your armament with a dietitian and personal trainer. "
Customer: "Well shit."

Pearl Trade · 10-08-2010, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

There is only one threat and one choice that I see

The right to own and bear guns is legally entitled in the USA. This right results in a number of deaths each year that would not occur if the right does not exist.

As a democracy, America must decide and does decide if this right is worth these deaths... "gun rights" will be revoked when the people decide differently, or conditions force the state to take the decision out of the people's hands.

I love it when you post. My heart skips a beat and I cry, but in a good way.

Like KirStang said, ignorance is the biggest threat. If they take away one right, they'll take away all of our rights. I don't think they will take it away, but it shouldn't even be an issue.

Shadowex3 · 10-08-2010, 09:23 PM

I'm with him on #1 at least. The guy that thinks it's a genius idea to try to bumpfire something ridiculously oversized and blows the top of his own head off in the process may have done the human race a favor genetically but as a (prospective) gun owner it hurts me by indirectly making us all look worse.

Imho the best gun owner is the one that nobody knew about until it was necessary. I don't think that open carry makes any more sense than concealed carry while shouting "I HAVE A GLOOOOCK". For once I agree with the marine corps on something: Be polite, be professional, be courteous, and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

Strange Famous · 10-09-2010, 12:25 AM

I think I do not really have a very strong personal opinion on whether the right to be armed should remain, because I dont live there. All I am saying is that people ought not close their eyes to the fact that this right has a cost. The right to own and bear guns has a value to many people certainly, and on a societal level there is a human cost.

To argue about whether the widespread ownerships of guns increases death is really just re-hashing old ground... I think if you look at the number of people who were shot unlawfully in the US last year, you can simply take a view. If you really believe if no one held guns all those people would have been stabbed or bludgeoned to death instead - then "there is no case to answer" as such.

monkeysugar · 10-09-2010, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

Those of us who look in from the outside will wonder how a country that enshrines freedom more than any other finds it acceptable that it is a usual situation for a parking ticket to be issued at gun point.

Obviously this is common knowledge, and as a citizen of the country you are referencing I should be perfectly aware of this. However, I don't watch TV so I must have missed the news reports showcasing this country-wide situation that has become so common that it is considered to be normal. Care to shed some light on the subject?

Shadowex3 · 10-09-2010, 11:42 AM

I believe he's referring to the officers having guns on their person meaning that everything they do is "at gun point"... which is rather silly since it means that everytime I do anything it's at more knifepoints than I have hands for.

SirLance · 10-09-2010, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle phil

...if a soldier asked me nicely to stay in my place temporarily, i'd probably say 'yes,' wartime or not...

I don't soldier much these days, UP, but if I piss my wife off much more I might need a place to hang...

uncle phil · 10-09-2010, 03:51 PM

i'm glad you and the planster understand what the third amendment is about, because i fear that some of the "cold, dead fingers" crowd doesn't...

dippin · 10-09-2010, 07:17 PM

as a complete aside, I've yet to understand this "we are a republic not a democracy" bit.

I mean, they have almost identical meaning, just different root languages (democracy is the people's rule in Greek and Republic is "the affairs of the people" in Latin). And the supposed difference between them (that democracies the majority rules everything while in the republic it doesn't) is both ahistorical and illogical.

Willravel · 10-09-2010, 07:54 PM

I think the idea is that we're not a direct democracy, there are things which are above the will of the majority.

dippin · 10-09-2010, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I think the idea is that we're not a direct democracy, there are things which are above the will of the majority.

But democracy doesn't necessitate a direct democracy nor means that the will of the majority is absolute.

Baraka_Guru · 10-09-2010, 10:52 PM

As I mentioned above, it's a matter of the process including representative democracy. I'm assuming you folks vote people into power to represent your interests. Well, I'd like to consider that a kind of democracy.

StanT · 10-11-2010, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

All legal acrobatics aside, a plain reading of the language is pretty clear. It's when interests and politics get involved that things get muddied.

It might be plain when you ignore the half you don't like.

Quote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can (and will) argue the definition of militia; but the fact remains that the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to regulation.

I'm pretty indifferent to guns, gun culture, and such. I just don't buy the any, any, any mentality that the NRA pushes as a constitutional right (Any weapon, any person, anywhere). A single sentence that gives you the right to bear arms, also allows for regulation. Selective quotation doesn't change that.

dksuddeth · 10-11-2010, 12:06 PM

deleted because I didn't take enough time to follow who posted what.

KirStang · 10-11-2010, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanT

It might be plain when you ignore the half you don't like.

You can (and will) argue the definition of militia; but the fact remains that the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to regulation.

I'm pretty indifferent to guns, gun culture, and such. I just don't buy the any, any, any mentality that the NRA pushes as a constitutional right (Any weapon, any person, anywhere). A single sentence that gives you the right to bear arms, also allows for regulation. Selective quotation doesn't change that.

Sure, attack my 'selective' quotation. The two clauses are interpreted separately. See DC v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, specifically sections II(A)(2) & (3).

Regulated applies to the militia. Not to the arms. But whatever. Attack my quotation. Got a problem with the interpretation? File suit. Good luck.

dksuddeth · 10-11-2010, 12:30 PM

deleted because I still can't follow who posted what.

KirStang · 10-11-2010, 12:33 PM

Uh...DK? Was addressing StanT?

From what I superficially gather, the Fed's justification for regulating firearms is something like the commerce clause, not the 'regulated' portion of the 2A.

Anyway, the point is this: StanT says I'm selectively quoting. However, the Supreme Court (the supreme interpreters of the constitution!!!) itself, considers the two portions separately. One as 'prefatory' (in other words, the purposes for the amendment), and the other as 'operative' (what the amendment actually in fact protects).

Legal acrobatics indeed.

roachboy · 10-11-2010, 12:39 PM

well, if you look at those two clauses together, you could easily and reasonably infer from them a justification for some limitations on gun ownership rights.
for example, "a well-regulated militia" likely could not abide crazy people.
it likely would not abide those with serious criminal backgrounds--or presents characterized by that sort of activity.
and there'd likely have to be some kind of safety training.
so one could argue that gun ownership could be regulated in the way driving is without violating the meanings one can reasonably impute to that entire sentence.

but the clauses are separated by precedent.

you'd think then that there would be less correlation between strict constructionists and absolutist positions on the 2nd amendment.

sometimes precedent is what enables counter-intuitive positions to become possible that strict construction folk like. it's a conundrum, really, how that circles is squared.

dksuddeth · 10-11-2010, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

Uh...DK? Was addressing StanT?

From what I superficially gather, the Fed's justification for regulating firearms is something like the commerce clause, not the 'regulated' portion of the 2A.

Anyway, the point is this: StanT says I'm selectively quoting. However, the Supreme Court (the supreme interpreters of the constitution!!!) itself, considers the two portions separately. One as 'prefatory' (in other words, the purposes for the amendment), and the other as 'operative' (what the amendment actually in fact protects).

Legal acrobatics indeed.

ooops. my bad.

StanT · 10-11-2010, 12:52 PM

DC vs Heller struck down DC's ban on handguns. The majority opinion, written by Scalia, specifically stated that other regulations were valid.When it comes to constitutionalists, it doesn't get much more hardcore than Scalia.

Quote:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

It's not like Supreme Court justices to address things that aren't specifically mentioned in a case. It's noteworthy that Scalia did in this case.

An analysis of Second Amendment language and federalist/anti federalist positions:
Chicago-Kent Law Review

The bottom line if that the founding fathers were every bit as contentious and vague as present politicians. You can read either viewpoint into both the language or intent of the time.

I'm not anti-gun, I'm against an entitlement mentality.

10-08-2010, 03:31 AM	#2 (permalink)
uncle phil comfortably numb... Super Moderator Location: upstate	damn, someone from the "cold, dead fingers" crowd who makes sense... and, if a soldier asked me nicely to stay in my place temporarily, i'd probably say 'yes,' wartime or not... __________________ "We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done." - Robert S. McNamara ----------------------------------------- "We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches... We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles." - Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message" ----------------------------------------- never wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty; the pig likes it.

10-08-2010, 06:00 AM	#3 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	So, uh, can I stay on your couch? __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

10-08-2010, 07:14 AM	#4 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	yet another piece of mind oriented fiction to somehow stress to people that 'yes, you have that right, but you shouldn't exercise it' bullshit. I want my 2 minutes back. __________________ "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."

10-08-2010, 08:08 AM	#5 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...discrimination Last edited by KirStang; 10-08-2010 at 08:11 AM..

10-08-2010, 08:30 AM	#6 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	C'mon, DK. Go read the two articles on Open Carry (holy noises) and tell us how you really feel. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

10-08-2010, 02:46 PM	#12 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	... Last edited by KirStang; 10-08-2010 at 02:49 PM..

10-08-2010, 03:55 PM	#13 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	There is only one threat and one choice that I see The right to own and bear guns is legally entitled in the USA. This right results in a number of deaths each year that would not occur if the right does not exist. As a democracy, America must decide and does decide if this right is worth these deaths... "gun rights" will be revoked when the people decide differently, or conditions force the state to take the decision out of the people's hands. _ Those who are passionate about the right to own the means of destruction will talk of the right of self defence Those of us who look in from the outside will wonder how a country that enshrines freedom more than any other finds it acceptable that it is a usual situation for a parking ticket to be issued at gun point. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

10-08-2010, 04:31 PM	#15 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	Perhaps ignorance is the biggest threat to the Second Amendment.

10-08-2010, 05:05 PM	#18 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Correct. However, in a Republic the power of democratic initiative is tempered by what we in the US terms "Checks and balances" between branches of government which share no authority or powers, and which are intended to be intensely adversarial. Furthermore, in a Republic the ability of the majority to exercise democratic franchise is limited by a body of codified laws specific to that purpose which are difficult to change or alter, and which are -intended- to be easily understood and (absent aforementioned difficult changes) permanent. A Republic may therefore be loosely defined as a sub-type or relative of democracy. However, in a Democracy the power of the Mob, of the uninformed and easily-misled majority (because any Group is only as smart as it's stupidest member) is essentially unchecked. Moreover, in a Republic the Right of Franchise is typically extended only to those with extensive and hard-to-sever ties to a given community (landowners) and those who have indicated an interest in serving the interests of the Body Politic and the Republic itself (the so-called Starship Troopers scenario). This is intended to keep laws from being made or monies from being spent for "light and transient causes," as Mr. Jefferson put it, and to keep people who will -not- be affected by a given law from passing laws which will adversely affect their neighbors. Not sure if y'all have a different term? __________________ "I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world." --Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

10-08-2010, 05:23 PM	#19 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	It's a bit challenging to keep track of. The Canadian government, like many other governments, also has a system with built-in separation of powers. In our case it's the differences between the judiciary, the Senate, the House of Commons, and the Crown. Within those groupings you get the expected three branches of government: the judicial, the legislative, and the executive. Probably the biggest difference between our two systems lies in the differences between the presidential system and the parliamentary system, which is largely a structural matter in terms of how representatives are elected/appointed and how they act. We're also technically a constitutional monarchy, which means we too are limited by a constitution, and so we understand the difficulty undertaken to make any changes to the top-level document. For example, if we wanted to do away with the remnants of the monarchy and become an actual republic, we'd need to open up the constitution to do so. But that's like opening up a can of worms, as it invites other interests because, hey, while we're at it.... Anyway, enough of the threadjack. I don't see the U.S. Constitution feasibly changing anytime soon. I'm not sure if that's what Strange was implying, or whether he was implying that federal law would limit the right. Either way, it seems a bit far fetched. The culture of being armed is too ingrained I 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 Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 10-08-2010 at 05:26 PM..

10-08-2010, 07:27 PM	#20 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Look, I agree that idiots in general are a problem within the gun community. Trust me. But it's ridiculous for the author of this article to make the generalizations and accusations that he/she does. Likewise I equally detest those who love their guns but are ignorant of the Constitution. However I and a great many other gun-owners in the US are well-educated, politically aware people working towards concrete coherent ends: the cultural normalisation or at least acceptance of -all- Constitutional and Human Rights for -all- people. __________________ "I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world." --Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

10-09-2010, 12:25 AM	#24 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I think I do not really have a very strong personal opinion on whether the right to be armed should remain, because I dont live there. All I am saying is that people ought not close their eyes to the fact that this right has a cost. The right to own and bear guns has a value to many people certainly, and on a societal level there is a human cost. To argue about whether the widespread ownerships of guns increases death is really just re-hashing old ground... I think if you look at the number of people who were shot unlawfully in the US last year, you can simply take a view. If you really believe if no one held guns all those people would have been stabbed or bludgeoned to death instead - then "there is no case to answer" as such. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

10-09-2010, 03:51 PM	#28 (permalink)
uncle phil comfortably numb... Super Moderator Location: upstate	i'm glad you and the planster understand what the third amendment is about, because i fear that some of the "cold, dead fingers" crowd doesn't... __________________ "We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done." - Robert S. McNamara ----------------------------------------- "We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches... We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles." - Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message" ----------------------------------------- never wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty; the pig likes it.

10-09-2010, 07:17 PM	#29 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	as a complete aside, I've yet to understand this "we are a republic not a democracy" bit. I mean, they have almost identical meaning, just different root languages (democracy is the people's rule in Greek and Republic is "the affairs of the people" in Latin). And the supposed difference between them (that democracies the majority rules everything while in the republic it doesn't) is both ahistorical and illogical.

10-09-2010, 07:54 PM	#30 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I think the idea is that we're not a direct democracy, there are things which are above the will of the majority.

10-09-2010, 10:52 PM	#32 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	As I mentioned above, it's a matter of the process including representative democracy. I'm assuming you folks vote people into power to represent your interests. Well, I'd like to consider that a kind of democracy. __________________ 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

10-11-2010, 12:06 PM	#34 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	deleted because I didn't take enough time to follow who posted what. __________________ "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." Last edited by dksuddeth; 10-11-2010 at 12:48 PM..

10-11-2010, 12:30 PM	#36 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	deleted because I still can't follow who posted what. __________________ "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." Last edited by dksuddeth; 10-11-2010 at 12:49 PM..

10-11-2010, 12:33 PM	#37 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	Uh...DK? Was addressing StanT? From what I superficially gather, the Fed's justification for regulating firearms is something like the commerce clause, not the 'regulated' portion of the 2A. Anyway, the point is this: StanT says I'm selectively quoting. However, the Supreme Court (the supreme interpreters of the constitution!!!) itself, considers the two portions separately. One as 'prefatory' (in other words, the purposes for the amendment), and the other as 'operative' (what the amendment actually in fact protects). Legal acrobatics indeed. Last edited by KirStang; 10-11-2010 at 12:36 PM..

10-11-2010, 12:39 PM	#38 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, if you look at those two clauses together, you could easily and reasonably infer from them a justification for some limitations on gun ownership rights. for example, "a well-regulated militia" likely could not abide crazy people. it likely would not abide those with serious criminal backgrounds--or presents characterized by that sort of activity. and there'd likely have to be some kind of safety training. so one could argue that gun ownership could be regulated in the way driving is without violating the meanings one can reasonably impute to that entire sentence. but the clauses are separated by precedent. you'd think then that there would be less correlation between strict constructionists and absolutist positions on the 2nd amendment. sometimes precedent is what enables counter-intuitive positions to become possible that strict construction folk like. it's a conundrum, really, how that circles is squared. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-11-2010 at 12:42 PM..