Gun control vs. Vehicle control (DUI)..........

[The Infidel]

I think it's an excellent comparison, and I think all the requirements and responsibilities that are imposed upon drivers of cars should also be applied to gun ownership.

Therefore ownership of an automatic or semi-automatic firearm should have the following:

• mandatory insurance,
• licenses that are periodically renewed,
• registration with a state-wide database,
• qualification tests and a clean record to own one
• revocation of license if you show a grossly negligent or illegal train of behavior,
• revocation of license if you have a handicap (physical or mental) that prevents you from responsibly operating said device.

Pretty simple and straightforward.

And everyone who fits these requirements should own a gun, as a responsible citizen.

ONE is a priledge
AND the other is A
RIGHT
You're comparing apples too watermelons.

No, because according to just about the whole nation, crazy people don't have a right to own a gun, and neither do felons, because of what they did.

However..................a well regulated militia would have the things that LWC brought up, don't ya think? It would help to weed out the crazies and psychos.

But..............on second thought, I can see why you'd be against it ya looney psychopath.

Ridicule Bigred, but he was correct.
No comparison at all.

 

[Vast LWC]

It does not say that, though. What it says is, 'we realize that from time to time, we may need to defend against immediate threats from outside or within. It will take time to raise an army, so a well regulated militia should always be available'.

THEN it says, only partly in response to the first clause, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The second clause is no more limited by the first than freedom of religion is limited by freedom of press in the first amendment.

How is it "only partly in response" to the first part of the clause?

It's the same clause.

If they wanted them to be separate, they would have put a clause in the constitution that stated "militias should be ready to form in a timely manner", and then another separate clause stating "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

 

[Vast LWC]

And Freedom of the Press and Freedom of religion are clearly unrelated, with no causality from one to the other, while "well-regulated militias" and "the right to bear arms" are clearly related.

Now, certainly one does not have to be an actual member of a "well-regulated militia" in order to qualify for this, but the intention that the two should be related couldn't be more clear.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Some threads are so stupid it makes me wonder just how many unstable people that end up shooting people also post on message boards.

 

[Vast LWC]

In fact, Alito himself seems to support my point:

Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms

Alito said the court had made clear in its 2008 decision that it was not casting doubt on such long-standing prohibitions on gun possession by felons and the mentally ill, or keeping firearms out of "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings.

"We repeat those assurances here," Alito wrote. "Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, [the decision] does not imperil every law regulating firearms."

In other words, while the right to bear arms is held to be inviolate for normal individuals, it is not inviolate for people that are already deemed to be a danger for society.

Therefore, weeding these individuals out with background checks and a national database of firearm registration, for instance, would certainly not be against the law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In fact, Alito himself seems to support my point:

Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms

Alito said the court had made clear in its 2008 decision that it was not casting doubt on such long-standing prohibitions on gun possession by felons and the mentally ill, or keeping firearms out of "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings.

"We repeat those assurances here," Alito wrote. "Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, [the decision] does not imperil every law regulating firearms."

In other words, while the right to bear arms is held to be inviolate for normal individuals, it is not inviolate for people that are already deemed to be a danger for society.

Therefore, weeding these individuals out with background checks and a national database of firearm registration, for instance, would certainly not be against the law.

Hitler was a big supporter of gun registration.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your original point of your thread is a fail, do you want to go two for two?
So if someone steals your car and gets drunk and kills someone you as the owner of the car should serve a portion of the sentence also?

And Firearm ownership is a right driving on the road is a privilege

Firearm ownership is a "right", you are correct. However, it is a right with a stipulation attached to it.

The reason for said right is not that gun ownership is a basic human right that should not be denied.

No, the specific constitutional reason for people to be guaranteed the right to own firearms is so that "well regulated militias" can be formed in a timely fashion.

Since the militia formed by said gun owners is supposed to be "well regulated", that would mean said militia wouldn't include the insane, or criminals.

Therefore it would be quite useful for the quick formation of that militia to already have these people weeded out.

And it would also be useful for the formation of said militia to have a record of who would potentially be part of it.

In fact, all of the above seem to fall right in line with the purpose of the second amendment.

You see, the Second Amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms to the general citizenry, but it definitely also gives a very clear purpose for that right to exist.

If that purpose is not being served by said right, than the reason for it existing is invalidated.

Can't argue against this. Now define what is well regulated how does it happen?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think it's an excellent comparison, and I think all the requirements and responsibilities that are imposed upon drivers of cars should also be applied to gun ownership.

Therefore ownership of an automatic or semi-automatic firearm should have the following:

• mandatory insurance,
• licenses that are periodically renewed,
• registration with a state-wide database,
• qualification tests and a clean record to own one
• revocation of license if you show a grossly negligent or illegal train of behavior,
• revocation of license if you have a handicap (physical or mental) that prevents you from responsibly operating said device.

Pretty simple and straightforward.

And everyone who fits these requirements should own a gun, as a responsible citizen.

ONE is a priledge
AND the other is A
RIGHT
You're comparing apples too watermelons.

We have a RIGHT to a well regulated militia

Putting responsibilities on gun owners does not violate their constitutional rights

Twisting the words of the second amendment? What a bitch you are.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I would propose that the law require each gun owned to be insured, and allow the private insurance industry to determine the annual fee for each firearm. Let the actuary's determine the risk each type of firearm presents and set the fee. Then, any tort to occur by the use of said firearm by someone who used or who lost (for whatever reason) their gun will be personally liable.

I suspect some firearms would be deemed too dangerous for an insurance company to cover (much like some homeowner polices will not cover pit bulls or Dobermans) and make the ownership of such weapons a fiscal risk. Gun ownership is all about personal responsibility, isn't it?

I also believe a state issued license to own, possess or have in one's custody or control is appropriate and said license can be suspended or revoked for cause (i.e. convictions for DUI, Domestic Violence, any felony or detention in a hospital as a danger to self or others). All to be at the discretion of the individual state, but said license not allow for the transportation to any other state without an official approval by the other state(s).

Nope will not work, what you are suggesting is that only the rich would be allowed to have firearms.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And you believe this would prevent school shootings. why?

And there's that little 2A thing as well. You don't need a permit for a printing press. You don't need a permit to practice religion or buy a bible. You don't have to register with the state as a religious functionary or pass any kind of test.
I realize a cocksucker like you doesn't give a shit about civil rights and you probably violated a bunch in your pitiful working life. But those things matter.

Violence plays role in shorter US life expectancy - Nation - The Boston Globe

Translation: I have no reason to think what I proposed would do diddly squat to prevent violence but I distrust armed citizens and hate gun owners so want to stick it to them by making it difficult, expensive, and intrusive to own a gun.

Yeah, we got that.

anti gun people like Wry hate the poor so much they want to take away any means possible to defend themselves.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you having a stroke? Unable to read?
Scalia wrote that the first clause announces the purpose of the second, but does not limit it. So the ability of any person to participate in a militia does not determine what sort of right he enjoys.

There are limits possible on the right, just like all of them. But there needs to be a compelling reason to do so. What is compelling? I don't know. But I havent seen any restrictions proposed that would be compelling.

Since the ability of a person to participate in a militia is in fact the purpose of the clause, why would further assistance to formation of said militia not be encouraged? Like a database of potential members, and documentation of potential members?

In addition, since the purpose of said right is clearly to further the formation of militias, what possible point would there be to guaranteeing the right to bear arms to people who could not possible participate in said militia?

Since just about everyone in the nation would be able to join a "well-regulated militia", it would only be the mentally disturbed, mentally handicapped, those who are physically unable to wield a weapon, and criminals, who lose their rights upon conviction anyway.

That seems pretty damn good to me.

While the ability to raise a militia might be the stated purpose, the right is unrestricted.
So you are wrong again.

 

[Stephanie]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

I agree with strict liability civil fines for gun owners. If you can't safely store your gun in a manner that prevents it from being stolen and used in a crime, you should have to pay 10k for every life that gun takes. How you store your guns is your business but if it results in loss of life you should pay.

you should be fined 10K for this stupid post
remember folks, scratch a liberal find a fascist^^^^

 

[Ernie S.]

It does not say that, though. What it says is, 'we realize that from time to time, we may need to defend against immediate threats from outside or within. It will take time to raise an army, so a well regulated militia should always be available'.

THEN it says, only partly in response to the first clause, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The second clause is no more limited by the first than freedom of religion is limited by freedom of press in the first amendment.

How is it "only partly in response" to the first part of the clause?

It's the same clause.

If they wanted them to be separate, they would have put a clause in the constitution that stated "militias should be ready to form in a timely manner", and then another separate clause stating "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

How are freedom of speech and religion connected then...

 

[jtpr312]

I would propose that the law require each gun owned to be insured, and allow the private insurance industry to determine the annual fee for each firearm. Let the actuary's determine the risk each type of firearm presents and set the fee. Then, any tort to occur by the use of said firearm by someone who used or who lost (for whatever reason) their gun will be personally liable.

I suspect some firearms would be deemed too dangerous for an insurance company to cover (much like some homeowner polices will not cover pit bulls or Dobermans) and make the ownership of such weapons a fiscal risk. Gun ownership is all about personal responsibility, isn't it?

I also believe a state issued license to own, possess or have in one's custody or control is appropriate and said license can be suspended or revoked for cause (i.e. convictions for DUI, Domestic Violence, any felony or detention in a hospital as a danger to self or others). All to be at the discretion of the individual state, but said license not allow for the transportation to any other state without an official approval by the other state(s).

Bunch of bs.

 

[Vast LWC]

How are freedom of speech and religion connected then...

They are not.

In one case, the amendment contains a list of different rights.

Thus the use of the word "or" to separate said rights, and the use of semi-colons:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The second amendment is specifically written to relate one part to the other. Notice the lack of conjunctions or semi-colons:

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.

It does not say "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The intent of the amendment is perfectly clear:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so that a well regulated militia can be formed, in a manner that ensures the security of a free state.

Note that in other parts of the Constitution, semi-colons are often used to separate items.

 

[The Rabbi]

How are freedom of speech and religion connected then...

They are not.

In one case, the amendment contains a list of different rights.

Thus the use of the word "or" to separate said rights, and the use of semi-colons:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The second amendment is specifically written to relate one part to the other. Notice the lack of conjunctions or semi-colons:

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.

It does not say "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The intent of the amendment is perfectly clear:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so that a well regulated militia can be formed, in a manner that ensures the security of a free state.

Why do you think you are more knowledgeable than Justice Scalia, who disagrees with you?

 

[Vast LWC]

Why do you think you are more knowledgeable than Justice Scalia, who disagrees with you?

He does not in fact "disagree with me".

"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

"Some undoubtedly are [permissible] because there were some that were acknowledged at the time" the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as "frighting," where people "carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head axe or something. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor."

“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."

The conservative justice notably authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms and struck down a D.C. ban on handguns. The court also ruled, though, that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”

-Antonin Scalia on "Fox News Sunday" July 29th, 2012

 

[The Rabbi]

Why do you think you are more knowledgeable than Justice Scalia, who disagrees with you?

He does not in fact "disagree with me".

"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

"Some undoubtedly are [permissible] because there were some that were acknowledged at the time" the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as "frighting," where people "carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head axe or something. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor."

“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."

The conservative justice notably authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms and struck down a D.C. ban on handguns. The court also ruled, though, that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”

-Antonin Scalia on "Fox News Sunday" July 29th, 2012

Funny thing. I dont see anything in there about the right being limited to those capable of serving in the militia.
In fact, here is the quotation from Scalia's opinion itself, which supports what I said and refutes what you say:

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

So looks like you are rolling snake eyes on this thread.

 

[ABikerSailor]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

You should spend more time learning stuff and less time taking it up the ass from your roommate.
By your logic if you kill someone who is 80 then you should get 5 years off any other sentence.

What does magazine capacity have to do with BAC? They're equivalent only if you been snorting poppers, which you doubltess have.

I guess you missed the bolded part. Kill someone over 75 and the minimum sentence you could receive is 5 years if you only shot 1 bullet and had none left after you shot them.

 

[Stephanie]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

You should spend more time learning stuff and less time taking it up the ass from your roommate.
By your logic if you kill someone who is 80 then you should get 5 years off any other sentence.

What does magazine capacity have to do with BAC? They're equivalent only if you been snorting poppers, which you doubltess have.

I guess you missed the bolded part. Kill someone over 75 and the minimum sentence you could receive is 5 years if you only shot 1 bullet and had none left after you shot them.

scratch a liberal find a facist^^^^
had to imagine you are in the military