Gun control protects criminals

[Bern80]

I like the way that each side (Democrat and Republican) likes to limit or expand different portions of the Bill of Rights to suit his agenda. Should we limit the Bill of Rights to encompass only that which the founding fathers intended? Yes or no?

One would have to know what they intended.

 

[Shogun]

I like the way that each side (Democrat and Republican) likes to limit or expand different portions of the Bill of Rights to suit his agenda. Should we limit the Bill of Rights to encompass only that which the founding fathers intended? Yes or no?

Given the wide realm of liberty granted by the ninth amendment...


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/

 

[mattskramer]

One would have to know what they intended.

I agree. Yet, there would probably be gray areas and subjective opinion on the issue. Did the founding fathers ever imagine bazookas or ICBM’s? Does it matter? If private citizens can have super-powerful weapons per the Bill of Rights, can they engage in animal sacrifices if it is in keeping with their religion? Can they refuse to support the military through taxes if their religion calls for extreme pacifism?

Yes, Shogun. I know that we have discussed it before.

 

[Bern80]

I agree. Yet, there would probably be gray areas and subjective opinion on the issue. Did the founding fathers ever imagine bazookas or ICBM’s? Does it matter? If private citizens can have super-powerful weapons per the Bill of Rights, can they engage in animal sacrifices if it is in keeping with their religion? Can they refuse to support the military through taxes if their religion calls for extreme pacifism?

Yes, Shogun. I know that we have discussed it before.

The forefathers had the foresight I think to see that they would not be able to allow for every contigency that the future held. As such they built in a system by which the constitution could be changed. If the anti-gun crowd is so against firearms they should put their money where there mouth is and propose that the 2nd ammendment be repealed. If your of the group that thinks the 2nd ammendment is too broad and guns need to be controlled to a greater degree then what the 2nd ammendment calls for, again get your movement together and get the support required to change it.

 

[Shogun]

what kind of things were banned in the first 10 years of America's history?

 

[mattskramer]

what kind of things were banned in the first 10 years of America's history?

I don’t think that things were dangerous enough back then to warrant being banned. They didn’t even have porno, did they?

 

[Shogun]

I don’t think that things were dangerous enough back then to warrant being banned. They didn’t even have porno, did they?

I hope that was a joke.. and if so, Fox, Pryor, Carlin and Hicks would appreciate it.

 

[jillian]

I don’t think that things were dangerous enough back then to warrant being banned. They didn’t even have porno, did they?

Well, Ben Franklin traveled with his own hooker..... they were a bawdy bunch the founders.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

" I'm sorry but there's hardly a guerrilla army in the world that can stand up against the US military. Are you going to shoot your rifles at the bombs that are falling? What are you going to use against napalm and H bombs?

Read a history book. The Vietcong and Al Quada have done pretty well against the US Military. Besides your argument facetious at best. Do you really think the US government would blow its own peopl into the stone age? I don't think so Tim.

 

[Lookout]

"We are seeing scary signs today that our government does not have the best interests of the american people at heart."

Now why are these the same people who say we're being unpatriotic for questioning the war in Iraq? This makes no sense to me.

What I was trying to say about coming up with industrialized democracies is that those countries have a stable method for the transferral of power. They are ruled by the rich, not by the military.
In countries that are unstable, where there is no oligarchy, taking guns away from the people can easily be a step towards a facist dictatorship. It doesn't HAVE to be a step towards that, but it can be.
We have a very entrenched system in this country of maintaining the status quo, and it has nothing to do with military might, it has to do with money. Those in power aren't going to upset the status quo unless the entire economy falls apart or there's some kind apocalypse and society completely and utterly breaks down in a Mad Max kind of way. Hey if you want to plan for that, be my guest, but I highly doubt under present circumstances that gun control is going to lead to the creation of a police state in the US. It would be very bad for the economy for one thing.

Let's say that the US government does decide to turn on it's people. Let's say the people who own rifles form a militia. What are they going to do against the US military? Seriously? I'm sorry but there's hardly a guerrilla army in the world that can stand up against the US military. Are you going to shoot your rifles at the bombs that are falling? What are you going to use against napalm and H bombs?

And along that same line of argument, do you think that individuals should be allowed to have grenade launchers and tanks? I mean just in case?

Just the fact that you understand that YOUR/MY government would use bombs, napalm or H bombs says it all! Why do we have a government that would use that stuff on its own people?, and I believe they would. What did they do that has or is putting us in that position? The idea that the govt. would use its military against citizens is why we have the constitution and bill of rights which have now been stripped away. The idea the govt would use the military against its own people used to be illegal. At least before if that did happen, when the smoke cleared the people instituting such an agression would be hung. For me personally...I want my weapons for when I move to Alaska to live in the great outdoors while all the shooting and bombing is going on in our prison cities. I'm not sticking around here in this mess when the shit hits the fan! If I have to hood mount my .308 to get out, I will! Once I get to Alaska I willl have all the food I can shoot and all the fresh water I can drink. I will also be able to protect myself from anyone or anything trying to take what I claim as mine once I get there.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

"Gun control" doesn't mean banishing firearms.

Then define "gun control."

The second Amendment is the cornerstone for the other nine that outline our basic inalienable rights. If it is chipped away, then eventually the structure that is the Bill of Rights crumbles.

 

[Diuretic]

Then define "gun control."

The second Amendment is the cornerstone for the other nine that outline our basic inalienable rights. If it is chipped away, then eventually the structure that is the Bill of Rights crumbles.

I'm not a lawyer and certainly not someone with anything other than a faint knowledge of the US Constitution (which will become apparent) but I doubt if any of the clauses of the Bill of Rights is a cornerstone. Even the First Amendment can't claim that status. Now I won't go into the discussion about the Second Amendment because if some of the best legal minds in American history can't sort it out then it's patently obvious I won't be able to put a dent into the argument. So, to "gun control."

Gun control isn't about taking firearms away from everyone - just some and also preventing some from being able to get firearms. Simple as that - the regulation of the production, importation, possession and use of firearms. The total prohibition of any citizen ownership etc of a firearm isn't gun control.

 

[mattskramer]

Then define "gun control."

The second Amendment is the cornerstone for the other nine that outline our basic inalienable rights. If it is chipped away, then eventually the structure that is the Bill of Rights crumbles.

Almost everything should be considered in moderation. Isn’t there a chip in the 2nd amendment already? Can I have 50 automatic machine guns without going through a background check or any other requirement? Can I own several fully functional bazookas without question? Can I store such weapons anywhere? Can I conceal several pistols in my car without a permit? Okay. Do you really think that the Bill of Rights will crumble? I don’t.

 

[Gunny]

I'll give you that, if you agree that the arms we are guaranteed the right to bear are black powder rifles.

That is absurd.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I'm not a lawyer and certainly not someone with anything other than a faint knowledge of the US Constitution (which will become apparent) but I doubt if any of the clauses of the Bill of Rights is a cornerstone. Even the First Amendment can't claim that status. Now I won't go into the discussion about the Second Amendment because if some of the best legal minds in American history can't sort it out then it's patently obvious I won't be able to put a dent into the argument. So, to "gun control."

All of our inalienable rights come from somewhere. The majority were borrowed from the writings of John Locke. Due process, freedom of religion, press, and speech all came from him. Every right in the Bill of Rights can be credited to someone or something somewhere. All but the right to bear arms. The framers thought this one up on their own. Guess why. Thats right kids, to protect the other rights that we do so enjoy. That is why it is the cornerstone. The Bill of Rights is perfect the way it is. If the second amendment is repealled, amended, or tampered with in any way, that is what we legal folk call a precedent. That is dangerous because some asshole down the road might decide that due process is dangerous and god forbid convinces some other assholes of the same thing, then we have an bill that would repeal the 5th amendment and that is just not a good idea. Granted this scenario is unlikely , but a professional wrestler being elected Governor of Minnesota and the Terminator running the 5th largest economy in the world seemed pretty unlikely at one time as well. You just never know what the electorate is capable of.

Gun control isn't about taking firearms away from everyone - just some and also preventing some from being able to get firearms. Simple as that - the regulation of the production, importation, possession and use of firearms. The total prohibition of any citizen ownership etc of a firearm isn't gun control.

How is this different from the 20,000 gun laws we have on the books now?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Almost everything should be considered in moderation. Isn’t there a chip in the 2nd amendment already? Can I have 50 automatic machine guns without going through a background check or any other requirement? Can I own several fully functional bazookas without question? Can I store such weapons anywhere? Can I conceal several pistols in my car without a permit? Okay. Do you really think that the Bill of Rights will crumble? I don’t.

Then you are a short sighted dumbass.

 

[Diuretic]

.............


How is this different from the 20,000 gun laws we have on the books now?

With all due respect, that doesn't follow from what I was asked and my response. I was asked what "gun control" meant and I gave my understanding of it. I realise that the laws in the various States differ greatly but I wasn't asked to comment on those.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

With all due respect, that doesn't follow from what I was asked and my response. I was asked what "gun control" meant and I gave my understanding of it. I realise that the laws in the various States differ greatly but I wasn't asked to comment on those.

So basically you see no inherent problems with gun laws now as they are defined by the federal government?

All I was getting at is you mention gun control isn't banishing firearms when that is exactly how it is defined by those that want gun control. ie Brady, Clinton, Obama(http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)

 

[tigerbob]

Then you are a short sighted dumbass.

I must be a dumbass too bacause, in the absence of a considered rebuttal from you, mattskramer's observations are quite reasonable.

 

[Bern80]

I must be a dumbass too bacause, in the absence of a considered rebuttal from you, mattskramer's observations are quite reasonable.

Not really. What is the difference between 50 machine guns in the hands of mother theresa and 50 machine guns in the hands of Osama bin Laden?