Page 5 of 40 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 595

Thread: U.S. Gun Control Laws & The Second Amendment

  1. #61
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ablarc View Post
    Suppose it depends what you mean by "authored."

    By a mainstream definition, Jcqueline Palank and Ian Urbina of the New York Times were the authors; they also appear to have chosen the original title.
    DON'T CAUSE TROUBLE YOU HOULIGAN!!!!!!!

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
    If the rights were given because of the power that is no longer has...
    I'm not going to cover ground I've covered extensively in previous posts. Read the Locke explanation, etc.

    Rights are not given by the constitution. They are rights inherent in us as humans that are guaranteed protection from government intrusion by purposely limiting the governments authority.

    For the second time:

    "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
    -Thomas Jefferson

    There is no reason to prohibit gun ownership- ownership that does not infringe on other's rights. It is the tyrant's will that wishes posession of all arms.

  3. #63
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonik View Post
    I'm not going to cover ground I've covered extensively in previous posts. Read the Locke explanation, etc.
    Fair enough.

    Rights are not given by the constitution. They are rights inherent in us as humans that are guaranteed protection from government intrusion by purposely limiting the governments authority.
    But this is not some "god given" right. I know where you are coming from, but TRTBA is window dressing. Without state power, all gun ownership does is hurt the citizens by putting the power of life and death at he hands of anyone with a license and the will to pull the trigger. While 99% of the people out there would respect this, it is that 1% that ruins the model for everyone.

    It did not work in the "wild west" model (crimes and shooting were much higher then, per capita, than now), it would not work here.

    For the second time:

    "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
    -Thomas Jefferson
    But the whole PURPOSE of the "right" to bear arms was not merely for the right to own a gun. The right was to have your own freedoms and the means to protect them. That being the case, a sidearm is not valid. A state guard is. A militia is.

    I am not arguing individual rights here, just the logic train you are using. Philosophy works great until you bring it back to "A" and "B".

    There is no reason to prohibit gun ownership- ownership that does not infringe on other's rights. It is the tyrant's will that wishes posession of all arms.
    Um, it does infringe on others rights by the mere fact that it is something that can END another's life for no other reason than the person owning one desired it. It is not the same as putting people on "even ground". Hell, most fistfights do not end in death, but two guys, a relationship and a gun are a potent mixture, you know?


    The importance here is that the freedom of gun ownership was not meant as the end. It was only the means to the broader protection of ones given rights. If those rights can no longer be won, protected, or regained by the possession of a lethal instrument with NO OTHER PURPOSE than to hurt, kill, or threaten to do the same, possession of that instrument can no longer be considered in and of itself as a right.

    As soon as people separate the two and realize what was meant by the original authors of the constitution we can get back to the root and stop whining about the fact that you can't bring your 9mm to church.

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonik View Post
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
    -Thomas Jefferson
    It's just silly for anyone to think that a handgun is going to afford any protection against government tyranny. When Jefferson made that statement, arms was a good rifle - state of the art for the military. In combat today, a handgun is useless.

    What a tired argument. At least it made more sense as a deterrent to crime, but now that crime is dropping, we've tacked back to handguns as the bulwark of all our freedoms.

  5. #65

    Default

    Do you own a gun Zippy?

  6. #66

    Default

    That thing in his pocket? It could be a gun. Then again, it could be a banana.

  7. #67

    Default

    Not for quite a while.

    I did own an M1911 .45; it saved my life in combat. That may seem to be a contradiction of what I said above, but you had to be there.

    I carried it on occasion in 70s New York, but during an incident, I did not have it, or my life today might be very different. I may have posted about it somewhere.

    Being familiar with weapons, my experience is that while a rifle or assault weapon is more deadly, a handgun is much more empowering. Maybe because it's concealed, I don't know.

  8. #68
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rapunzel View Post
    That thing in his pocket? It could be a gun. Then again, it could be a banana.
    It's a rabbit silly woman!!!!!


  9. #69

    Default

    Than why does the military buy them by the ten thousend?

    I'll agree it isn't a PRIMARY weapon, but it still has it's place. But taking your logic the other way, if the 2A means what it says, I should be able to mound an Ma Deuce on my Hummer, shouldn't I.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    It's just silly for anyone to think that a handgun is going to afford any protection against government tyranny. When Jefferson made that statement, arms was a good rifle - state of the art for the military. In combat today, a handgun is useless.

  10. #70
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
    Than why does the military buy them by the ten thousend?

    I'll agree it isn't a PRIMARY weapon, but it still has it's place. But taking your logic the other way, if the 2A means what it says, I should be able to mound an Ma Deuce on my Hummer, shouldn't I.
    Don't get picky Mike, you know what he is saying.

    A handgun, in the vein of what the 2nd amendment was written, to stand up agains a national governmental entity to ensure the individual and state rights of a region, is nearly worthless.

    A handgun, along with a rifle, in the hands of a fully comissioned soldier or officer is not a good comparison.

  11. #71

    Default

    Don't ever ask why does the military...In the field, we referred to tactical maps as comic books.

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
    But taking your logic the other way, if the 2A means what it says, I should be able to mound an Ma Deuce on my Hummer, shouldn't I.
    What do you mean, the other way. That's the direction I was going.

    Which was the point of my Iraq example. Today, arms should include RPGs, IEDs, and Stingers.

    And if the right to bear arms is God given - well Allah is God too, right?

  12. #72

    Default

    There has never been a test of usefullness in confronting the goverment. Out of the old Miller decision, a test came out to the effect of asking if a weapon had a legitimate military use. The weapon in that case was a sawed off shotgun. The court decided that sawed off shotguns didn't have a military use.

    However, as far as handguns go, that argument falls apart, based on the fact that the military buys and issues handguns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge View Post
    Don't get picky Mike, you know what he is saying.

    A handgun, in the vein of what the 2nd amendment was written, to stand up agains a national governmental entity to ensure the individual and state rights of a region, is nearly worthless.

    A handgun, along with a rifle, in the hands of a fully comissioned soldier or officer is not a good comparison.

  13. #73

    Default

    They seem to have plenty of them, so it seems to apply there.

    But I think we're on the same wavelength. Arms are arms. Any military weapon. I should be able to stroll through Time Square with and M4 slung over my shoulder.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Don't ever ask why does the military...In the field, we referred to tactical maps as comic books.

    What do you mean, the other way. That's the direction I was going.

    Which was the point of my Iraq example. Today, arms should include RPGs, IEDs, and Stingers.

    And if the right to bear arms is God given - well Allah is God too, right?

  14. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeW
    Arms are arms. Any military weapon. I should be able to stroll through Time Square with and M4 slung over my shoulder.
    I am kind of surprised (not really) that the response to 9/11 and the color coded threats freaking everyone out, that individuals weren't empowered more hardware-wise. Instead we're supposed to call in a tip or something similarly obsequious.

    ---

    Police can't be everywhere all the time, so what's wrong with having the God given right of self protection?

    As for the government being leery of overstepping its authority with an armed citizenry, it seems fair to propose that they feel they can take more rights away because they have vastly superior firepower.

    My primary point is that the government is trying to incrementally take away Constitutional rights. It is disturbing to me that most of the conversation here has been trying to justify the taking, or ignore the utility of the right rather than the blatant abdication of public officials' oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution."

    As for reinstating the parity of firepower to a level of mutually assured distruction between the federal and local authorities I don't see how that could happen short of dissolving the standing military and distrubuting the equipment and personel to the various states as reserves. In such a scenario the federal bases, schools and training facilities would still be used, but no standing force would be under the federal control without a declaration of war by congress.

  15. #75
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
    There has never been a test of usefullness in confronting the goverment. Out of the old Miller decision, a test came out to the effect of asking if a weapon had a legitimate military use. The weapon in that case was a sawed off shotgun. The court decided that sawed off shotguns didn't have a military use.

    However, as far as handguns go, that argument falls apart, based on the fact that the military buys and issues handguns.

    Nope.

    You never see an assault force fgo in with only handguns. You jumped right over my point of contension to say "well if they buy it.."

    On that rationalle, $500 allen wrenches should be considered protected by the 2nd amendment too... :crosseyed:

Page 5 of 40 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NYC's Fight for Gun Control
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: January 28th, 2011, 06:10 PM
  2. Rent Control Questions
    By tone99loc in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: December 7th, 2005, 10:39 PM
  3. Cabaret Laws Face Rewrite
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 12th, 2004, 12:48 AM
  4. U.S. is a joke - homeland security out of control
    By Qtrainat1251 in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: September 5th, 2003, 05:32 PM
  5. Replies: 22
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2003, 08:45 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software