Observations regarding the anti-gun crowd

[M14 Shooter]

I'm afraid you're reaching on your claim that assault weapons are the types of weapons those who drafted the second amendment had in mind. Considering they were not invented at the time of the amendment's writing.

I said:
"'Assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of "arms" the 2nd was created to protect";
I did -not- say
"'Assault weapons' are the types of weapons those who drafted the second amendment had in mind.".

'Assault weapons' are, for the most part, civilian copies of military-issue weapons. Given that the 2nd was intended to make sure that the people would always have access to the sort of weapons suitable for use in the militia, and that the role of the militia is to assist/resis the standing army whenever necessary, it logically follows that the weapons protected by the 2nd are those suitable for assisting/resisting the military as per the stanard role of the militia. 'Assault weapons' fit this bill, almost perfectly.

I don't own a gun. But I have nothing against those who are sportsment and marksmen and use their weapons responsibly. I cna't conceive of a sportsman needing a 15 round clip.

-I- cannot conceive of a need to express ones's self by covering a statue of Mary with feces and dropping it into a vase of dog urine - but just as sure as the freesom of speech covers that very thing, the right to arms covers hi-cap mags.

See, the 2nd amendment isn't about huning, its about killing people - presumeably, peple that would shoot back. For that, the 'need' for hi-cap mags (and 'assault weapons' should be obvious.

Ban high capacity weapons. These weapons are not a sportsman's choice.

See above

They are designed to spread as much death and damage as possible, nothing NOTHING more.

The you agree with the first part of my response - that these are exactly the sort of weapons protected by the 2nd.

And if you think you're going to hold off the American Army with a shot gun and a .22, you must never watch the news.

Apparently, neither did the Vietnamese, the Iraqis and the Afghans - all took on the Ammerican army in just such a manner, and won.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm afraid you're reaching on your claim that assault weapons are the types of weapons those who drafted the second amendment had in mind. Considering they were not invented at the time of the amendment's writing.

I said:
"'Assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of "arms" the 2nd was created to protect";
I did -not- say
"'Assault weapons' are the types of weapons those who drafted the second amendment had in mind.".

'Assault weapons' are, for the most part, civilian copies of military-issue weapons. Given that the 2nd was intended to make sure that the people would always have access to the sort of weapons suitable for use in the militia, and that the role of the militia is to assist/resis the standing army whenever necessary, it logically follows that the weapons protected by the 2nd are those suitable for assisting/resisting the military as per the stanard role of the militia. 'Assault weapons' fit this bill, almost perfectly.

I don't own a gun. But I have nothing against those who are sportsment and marksmen and use their weapons responsibly. I cna't conceive of a sportsman needing a 15 round clip.

-I- cannot conceive of a need to express ones's self by covering a statue of Mary with feces and dropping it into a vase of dog urine - but just as sure as the freesom of speech covers that very thing, the right to arms covers hi-cap mags.

See, the 2nd amendment isn't about huning, its about killing people - presumeably, peple that would shoot back. For that, the 'need' for hi-cap mags (and 'assault weapons' should be obvious.


See above

They are designed to spread as much death and damage as possible, nothing NOTHING more.

The you agree with the first part of my response - that these are exactly the sort of weapons protected by the 2nd.

And if you think you're going to hold off the American Army with a shot gun and a .22, you must never watch the news.

Apparently, neither did the Vietnamese, the Iraqis and the Afghans - all took on the Ammerican army in just such a manner, and won.

What does the Second Amendment say? Literally.

Seems there's a provision for regulation in there. Right up front. That seems to slip right passed anyone who thinks high capacity weapons are a beneficial thing to have in society.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm afraid you're reaching on your claim that assault weapons are the types of weapons those who drafted the second amendment had in mind. Considering they were not invented at the time of the amendment's writing.

I said:
"'Assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of "arms" the 2nd was created to protect";
I did -not- say
"'Assault weapons' are the types of weapons those who drafted the second amendment had in mind.".

'Assault weapons' are, for the most part, civilian copies of military-issue weapons. Given that the 2nd was intended to make sure that the people would always have access to the sort of weapons suitable for use in the militia, and that the role of the militia is to assist/resis the standing army whenever necessary, it logically follows that the weapons protected by the 2nd are those suitable for assisting/resisting the military as per the stanard role of the militia. 'Assault weapons' fit this bill, almost perfectly.


-I- cannot conceive of a need to express ones's self by covering a statue of Mary with feces and dropping it into a vase of dog urine - but just as sure as the freesom of speech covers that very thing, the right to arms covers hi-cap mags.

See, the 2nd amendment isn't about huning, its about killing people - presumeably, peple that would shoot back. For that, the 'need' for hi-cap mags (and 'assault weapons' should be obvious.


See above


The you agree with the first part of my response - that these are exactly the sort of weapons protected by the 2nd.

And if you think you're going to hold off the American Army with a shot gun and a .22, you must never watch the news.

Apparently, neither did the Vietnamese, the Iraqis and the Afghans - all took on the Ammerican army in just such a manner, and won.

What does the Second Amendment say? Literally.

I take it then you either have no effective response to what I said, above, or that you agree with my responses. Either way - good to see.

Seems there's a provision for regulation in there. Right up front.

Regulation of the militia? Sure.
That regulation may not infringe on the right to arms, however,

That seems to slip right passed anyone who thinks high capacity weapons are a beneficial thing to have in society

As I show, above, and as you have failed to sddress - these are exactly the sort of weapons the 2nd is -supposed- to protect.
:shrug:

 

[Nosmo King]

I said:
"'Assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of "arms" the 2nd was created to protect";
I did -not- say
"'Assault weapons' are the types of weapons those who drafted the second amendment had in mind.".

'Assault weapons' are, for the most part, civilian copies of military-issue weapons. Given that the 2nd was intended to make sure that the people would always have access to the sort of weapons suitable for use in the militia, and that the role of the militia is to assist/resis the standing army whenever necessary, it logically follows that the weapons protected by the 2nd are those suitable for assisting/resisting the military as per the stanard role of the militia. 'Assault weapons' fit this bill, almost perfectly.


-I- cannot conceive of a need to express ones's self by covering a statue of Mary with feces and dropping it into a vase of dog urine - but just as sure as the freesom of speech covers that very thing, the right to arms covers hi-cap mags.

See, the 2nd amendment isn't about huning, its about killing people - presumeably, peple that would shoot back. For that, the 'need' for hi-cap mags (and 'assault weapons' should be obvious.


See above


The you agree with the first part of my response - that these are exactly the sort of weapons protected by the 2nd.


Apparently, neither did the Vietnamese, the Iraqis and the Afghans - all took on the Ammerican army in just such a manner, and won.

What does the Second Amendment say? Literally.

I take it then you either have no effective response to what I said, above, or that you agree with my responses. Either way - good to see.

Seems there's a provision for regulation in there. Right up front.

Regulation of the militia? Sure.
That regulation may not infringe on the right to arms, however,

That seems to slip right passed anyone who thinks high capacity weapons are a beneficial thing to have in society

As I show, above, and as you have failed to sddress - these are exactly the sort of weapons the 2nd is -supposed- to protect.
:shrug:

I do not agree with your assertion that assault weapons are legitimate, responsible and constitutionally protected. I never will agree that putting that type of weapon in the hands of the public is something our founders would have endorsed. I believe the destruction wrought by such weapons is self evident and should be admitted as People's Exhibit A when the indictments against manufacturers are issued.

I think such weapons bear as much regulatory scrutiny as a rocket propelled grenade launcher or a flame thrower.

But, you have a very narrow interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You cannot conceive that bearing arms is something a well regulated militia should do, not anyone with the price of a sub-machine gun.

If all these destructive weapons should be allowed, then all drugs should be legalized. Drugs wreak just as much havoc as guns. And the drugs don't kill. The people using drugs kill. Just like guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I do not agree with your assertion that assault weapons are legitimate, responsible and constitutionally protected.

-Explain exactly how the constitution does NOT protect them, espoecially given the argument I laid out and the court decisions surrounding the 2nd amendment.

-Further, if the 2nd was not intended to protect 'assault weapons' and those similar, then what sort of weapons was it intended to protect, and why?

But, you have a very narrow interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You cannot conceive that bearing arms is something a well regulated militia should do, not anyone with the price of a sub-machine gun.

That's not MY interpretation, that's standing legal jurisprudence.

If all these destructive weapons should be allowed, then all drugs should be legalized.

Non-sequitur, red herring.

 

[Dr Grump]

Of the 5 most deadly multiple shootings around the world in recent history, 4 have occurred in Europe in countries with strict gun control laws.

All, with exception of this recent Tuscon shooting, have occurred in places where it is illegal to carry a gun. Trouble is...the criminals know it...they don't care about the law.

Name them...

 

[BlindBoo]

Apparently, neither did the Vietnamese, the Iraqis and the Afghans - all took on the Ammerican army in just such a manner, and won.

Not Quite. Charlie had military weapons from China. While they could not stand with ours in the field they were not limited to shotguns and single shot rifles. Iraq has left over ordinance they use in IEDs and are getting aid from Iran. Afghans are being supplied by Pakistan.

 

[Nosmo King]

Just as possession of weapons of mass destruction is the standing jurisprudence, weapons whose design prohibits any use beyond a sporting use should be banned.

One cannot own a nuclear warhead, a flame thrower, a grenade launcher because that much destructive power should not be loosed on a society without that "well regulated militia" in mind.

The Army is not even assured existence in the constitution. It must be voted on every two years in order to still be in force. The founders were wary of renegade militias and mad men. Giving everyone rights to such weapons only serves to destroy society, not protect it.

People should have access to weaponry for sport or self defense. Neither of those two instances calls for the ability to spray fifteen, twenty, fifty shots at once.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just as possession of weapons of mass destruction is the standing jurisprudence, weapons whose design prohibits any use beyond a sporting use should be banned.

-Explain exactly how the constitution does NOT protect 'assault weapons', especially given the argument I laid out and the court decisions surrounding the 2nd amendment.

-Further, if the 2nd was not intended to protect 'assault weapons' and those similar, then what sort of weapons was it intended to protect, and why?

What you fail to realize, or fail to accept, is that the 2nd amdnement is all about protecting weapons designed to kill other people, other people who will presumeably shoot back. As such, any limitation to the sort of weapons protected by the 2nd to those for hutning/sporting purposes has no rational, hiistorical or constitutional basis whatsoever.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree, most anti-gun people are ignorant about guns (probably because they're obviously less likely to own themselves). I'm against making any new guns illegal-I think the guns that are currently available to the public are reasonable, and at a good level. Where I think we need to change things is that I don't think we should be able to bring a gun to public events-that's asking for trouble, and yes we should have security at those events in place so people can't get guns in.

We already ban guns at schools, and courthouses-and I think by allowing people to carry guns at those places isn't wise.

So in other words: I think people are the problem-not the guns. And there should only be a very small amount of places where we publicly limit where people can bring in guns, I just think that pubic political events happens to be one.

(private property I think it should be up to the owners of the property).

edit: so there's no non-liberal, but not really conservative either 2 cents on the issue.

Do you know another way of saying "gun-free zone"? "Target-rich environment".

Are you really so naive that you think mass murderers going on shooting sprees happens because we ALLOW them to do it? That the sort of people who would do such a thing are going to pay attention to laws prohibiting them from bringing a gun somewhere?

Ask yourself this: where do most mass shootings take place? That's right! In schools and other "gun-free zones". Why? Because the shooter doesn't have to worry about someone taking him out before he can turn the place into his own private shooting gallery.

 

[Nosmo King]

Just as possession of weapons of mass destruction is the standing jurisprudence, weapons whose design prohibits any use beyond a sporting use should be banned.

-Explain exactly how the constitution does NOT protect 'assault weapons', especially given the argument I laid out and the court decisions surrounding the 2nd amendment.

-Further, if the 2nd was not intended to protect 'assault weapons' and those similar, then what sort of weapons was it intended to protect, and why?

What you fail to realize, or fail to accept, is that the 2nd amdnement is all about protecing weapons designed to kill other people, who will presumeably shoot back. As such, any limitation to the sort of weapons protected by the 2nd to those for hutning/sporting purposes has no rational basis whatsoever.

Right. Within the limits of a "well regulated militia". Not the public at large. Public safety trumps any desire to arm yourself to the teeth.

If you want high capacity clips, automatic weapons, flame throwers and other weapons designed to kill others en mass, join the state National Guard troop~ a well regulated militia.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of the 5 most deadly multiple shootings around the world in recent history, 4 have occurred in Europe in countries with strict gun control laws.

All, with exception of this recent Tuscon shooting, have occurred in places where it is illegal to carry a gun. Trouble is...the criminals know it...they don't care about the law.

And interestingly enough, the Tucson shooting occurred at a meeting of people who were very unlikely to be carrying a gun.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We need to quit labelling political ideals as conservative or liberal.

Why? Because we're supposed to pretend we're unable to tell which part of the political spectrum a concept falls on? What is pretended stupidity supposed to achieve? Seems to me we have enough of the real kind already.

President Obama is considered more of a conservative than President Bush.

By whom?

There are liberals and conservatives in the Democratic Party and there are liberals and conservatives in the Republican Party.

So what? And didn't you just say you wanted to stop labeling things "liberal" and "conservative"? How is it, then, that you can tell that some members of a party are more to one side or the other?

As has been said we need to work together as Americans to make this a better a country.

Yes, that sounds wonderful . . . if you're speaking to a kindergarten class. In the adult world, it's very hard to "all work together" when we don't all have the same goals or ideas about what's a "better country".

Use your tactics for election where isolated groups can agree with your ideals.

What the hell does this even mean?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Right. Within the limits of a "well regulated militia". Not the public at large.

The right to arms in an individual right, containing no necessary relationship to the militia in order to exercise that right, fully. So, no, that's not the case at all, and as such, any limitation to the sort of weapons protected by the 2nd to those for hutning/sporting purposes has no rational basis whatsoever.

Public safety trumps any desire to arm yourself to the teeth.

You mean my constitutionally protected, fundlamental right to arm myself to the teeth.
Again, no - there is absolutely NO public afety issues with simple posession of ANY of the weapons protected by the 2nd amednment. None whatsoever.
Disagree?
Specifically, what threat does my simple posession of an M60 machinegun pose to you or anyone else?

And you have STILL not addressed:
-Explain exactly how the constitution does NOT protect 'assault weapons', especially given the argument I laid out and the court decisions surrounding the 2nd amendment.

-Further, if the 2nd was not intended to protect 'assault weapons' and those similar, then what sort of weapons was it intended to protect, and why?

If you want high capacity clips, automatic weapons, flame throwers and other weapons designed to kill others en mass, join the state National Guard troop~ a well regulated militia.

This is abject ignorance - an acute lack of having any idea what you;re talking aboout.
1: The right may be exercised in full abssent any relationship to any militia
2: The National Guard is part of the standing army; it is not militia.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.


27 words. 13 of them describe the conditions under which this amendment was intended.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Why do you deny practically half the wording of the amendment? Certainly the framers intended those words to be there and to mean something. Would the framers think that owning a high caliber cannon is a protected right? Or, would they envision such a weapon in the hands of a well regulated militia?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

What more is there to SAY?

The ONLY WAY to abridge it is to REPEAL IT by process of CONGRESS...

ALL GUN LAWS are illegal.

Enough said.

True.

So all people that get guns have to now join a militia that will be under the power of Congress to be called forth in times of need to defend the nation.

Kewl.

You really gotta work on that English comprehension thing, because nowhere in there does it require you to join a militia, NOR does it say anything about being under the power of Congress. Mentioning militias as a reason that the right to keep and bear arms is important isn't the same as saying they're the ONLY reason, or that only militia members get to own guns. Even the Supreme Court can figure THAT one out, so why can't the OTHER leftist idiots in this country?

By the way, most men in this country already meet that "under the power of Congress to be called forth" qualification at some point in their lives. It's called "registering for the draft". Perhaps you've heard of it?

 

[shintao]

What does the Second Amendment say? Literally.

I take it then you either have no effective response to what I said, above, or that you agree with my responses. Either way - good to see.


Regulation of the militia? Sure.
That regulation may not infringe on the right to arms, however,

That seems to slip right passed anyone who thinks high capacity weapons are a beneficial thing to have in society

As I show, above, and as you have failed to sddress - these are exactly the sort of weapons the 2nd is -supposed- to protect.
:shrug:

I do not agree with your assertion that assault weapons are legitimate, responsible and constitutionally protected. I never will agree that putting that type of weapon in the hands of the public is something our founders would have endorsed. I believe the destruction wrought by such weapons is self evident and should be admitted as People's Exhibit A when the indictments against manufacturers are issued.

I think such weapons bear as much regulatory scrutiny as a rocket propelled grenade launcher or a flame thrower.

But, you have a very narrow interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You cannot conceive that bearing arms is something a well regulated militia should do, not anyone with the price of a sub-machine gun.

If all these destructive weapons should be allowed, then all drugs should be legalized. Drugs wreak just as much havoc as guns. And the drugs don't kill. The people using drugs kill. Just like guns.

Just curious, where in the Constitution do you have the right to take away my guns?

 

[Nosmo King]

Why is it a federal offense to traffic in drugs? Why are drugs illegal? Because of their destructive nature. No drug can kill on its own. It takes a human to use that drug in order to die from its effect.

Just like guns.

And, just like drugs, the potency and lethality of guns is the question. If were going to cloak ourselves in a narrow interpretation of the constitution, ignoring the well regulated militia portion and just focusing on the right of the people, we're going to suffer the consequences of weapons designed not for sport, but merely to fire as many bullets as possible in the shortest time possible.

If drugs are a scourge on society, so are assault weapons. we need look no further than the newspaper to see the truth.

 

[Nosmo King]

I take it then you either have no effective response to what I said, above, or that you agree with my responses. Either way - good to see.


Regulation of the militia? Sure.
That regulation may not infringe on the right to arms, however,


As I show, above, and as you have failed to sddress - these are exactly the sort of weapons the 2nd is -supposed- to protect.
:shrug:

I do not agree with your assertion that assault weapons are legitimate, responsible and constitutionally protected. I never will agree that putting that type of weapon in the hands of the public is something our founders would have endorsed. I believe the destruction wrought by such weapons is self evident and should be admitted as People's Exhibit A when the indictments against manufacturers are issued.

I think such weapons bear as much regulatory scrutiny as a rocket propelled grenade launcher or a flame thrower.

But, you have a very narrow interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You cannot conceive that bearing arms is something a well regulated militia should do, not anyone with the price of a sub-machine gun.

If all these destructive weapons should be allowed, then all drugs should be legalized. Drugs wreak just as much havoc as guns. And the drugs don't kill. The people using drugs kill. Just like guns.

Just curious, where in the Constitution do you have the right to take away my guns?

Not every law is in the constitution, is it? Can you legally own a machine gun without any registration? Guess what! Machine guns were not on the radar of 18th century lawmakers!

 

[Cecilie1200]

True.

So all people that get guns have to now join a militia that will be under the power of Congress to be called forth in times of need to defend the nation.

Kewl.

Wrong as usual. The 2nd Amendment imparts 2 protected rights. One is to the States, granting them the right to create and maintain militias, which most States have quit doing. The second right is to the INDIVIDUAL , a protected right to OWN, maintain and use firearms. Further Congress can not call forth the entirety of a States Militia. Only a portion.

Incorrect. There is no such indivdual right. You can't find it. The right is assigned to the People..not the Person.

So what, precisely, do you think "the People" is in the Constitution, if not "individual persons"? If you think that the right to keep and bear arms is only being granted to the government by way of the military, what does that say about the First Amendment, which guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"? Are you saying that only the government, via officially designated branches thereof, is allowed to assemble and petition itself for redress of grievances? Because it sure looks to ME like the phrase "the people" refers to individual persons, and a right guaranteed to those individual persons.

How about the Fourth Amendment, which says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"? Are you telling me that that is, in fact, only guaranteeing that right to the government, in the form of its official branches? Are you saying that the Fourth Amendment is NOT, in fact, guaranteeing that I, as an individual citizen, have a right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and only places like the Post Office and the Social Security Administration - and, of course, military bases - are protected?

One last thing I'd really like you to clear up on this subject. If "the People" refers only to a collective under the control and direction of the government, rather than to individual persons, how does that tie in with the Tenth Amendment, which says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Does that mean that the powers not delegated to the federal government or to the state governments are reserved to the government? Perhaps that makes sense to YOU, but I don't think it does to anyone else.

Those are for very specific reasons.

First the Constitution designates indivdual rights to "persons"..collective rights to people.

You have REALLY got to sign up for some remedial reading classes, dude. The Constitution, like anyone else speaking basic English, uses "person" when the sentence calls for a singular individual person, and "people" when talking about more than one individual person. It does not use "people" as a code word for the government, no matter what you've been told.

The difference in the use of the phrase "the People" in the Second Amendment or any of the examples I gave previously is that those rights are guaranteed to everyone at all times. It's an ongoing, 24/7, across-the-board guarantee that affects most people's lives a good portion of the time. The Fifth Amendment, on the other hand, talks about a very singular event that never happens to the majority of people at all. That makes it appropriate - although certainly not necessary - to phrase it concerning the guy (who most of us will never be) who's stuck in that situation.

What does this say about the Amendments that don't use EITHER? To whom are the rights of Amendments 7 and 8, for example, guaranteed, since they mention neither "the People" OR "person"?

Second at the time of the Constitution, militia and people were frequently used to designate one another. I.e. People=Militia and vice versa.

Uh, no. While it is true that, in colonial times, the militia WAS simply the able-bodied men of the community, the words "people" and "militia" were NOT interchangeable. Then as now, "people" had a much broader context available. One could just as easily talk about "the people of this community" and have it include all the living humans, male and female, old and young. Just like now. And certainly no one restricted gun ownership at that time just to able-bodied men. Women and old farts and even kids were allowed to own and use guns, and no one expected them to serve in the militia, should one be needed.

What we have now is a perversion of original intent.

You wouldn't know original intent if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on your left ass cheek.

Our military probably would have resembled the Swiss model.

And the Army was never meant to be permanent. Soldiers were not meant to be professionals. The navy was meant to be permanent.

And the idea of an citizen soldier was another safeguard. It kept the "army" decentralized. Thus assuring that no state or Federal government would have to much power.

Then it's a good thing that our soldiers are citizens, huh? And with braindead sheep like you running around, it's not like the government NEEDS the military to have too much power.