Various Stances on Gun Control Policy

Posts that are locked but open for perusal.

Moderator: phpBB2 - Administrators

How much control of privately owned firearms should we havein the USA?

None at all ( Bring on the Rocket Launcher!)
6
21%
Handgun licenses
1
3%
Licenses for ALL guns
13
45%
Nothing except hunting guns
6
21%
Spitball shooters make me nervous
3
10%
 
Total votes : 29

Postby Capellini on Mon Mar 20, 2006 9:39 pm

See, I read it as "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 upon.

Translating from Jeffersonian english - Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

Implicit in the statement is the idea that the people need the arms for the maintenance of this necessary militia.

It doesn't say "Personal security, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon."
True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Capellini
Capolean Bone-apart
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: The State of Denial

Postby teripie on Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:19 pm

Cape's got a point there. "A well regulated militia" hardly implies every Tom, Dick, and Harry can grab a gun and hit the streets. It's an old argument. It's all semantics.
-----(\ /)------
-----(o.o)-----
----(> <)-----
This is Bunny.
Bunny, as cute and cuddley as he may appear, is bent on world domination.
To achieve this he has decided to start by taking over teh intarweb, a step towards his ultimate goal.
To help him complete his quest and therefore ensure bunny domination, copy and paste him into your sig
User avatar
teripie
Birthday Scribe
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:06 am
Location: Lost

Postby Qwertyuiopasd on Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:20 pm

well I interpret it as "you can have a millitia, and you can have guns"

with regulations of couse. not every tom dick and harry can have 'em. you need liscences.
daftbeaker wrote:But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple' :moon:


Any statistical increase in the usage of the :idiot: emoticon since becoming Admin should not be considered significant, meaningful, or otherwise cause for worry.
User avatar
Qwertyuiopasd
Admirable Admiral Qwerty
 
Posts: 14353
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby LibraLabRat on Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:38 pm

Do you guys even hear yourself talking? I have spent the last ten years of my life defending this attitude of weakness? I am not paranoid;

MY HOUSE HAS BEEN BROKEN INTO WITH MY WIFE AND CHILDREN ASLEEP IN THEIR BEDS, AND I HAVE BEEN NEARLY MUGGED. WHAT SHOULD I HAVE DONE, STAYED QUIET AND HOPED FOR THE BEST? SCREW THAT POLLYANNA RAINBOWS AND KISSES CRAP.

IF SOMEONE BREAKS INTO MY HOUSE, AND REFUSES MY REQUEST TO LEAVE, I AM GOING TO KILL THEM. I AM NOT GONNA TALK TO THEM ABOUT THEIR CHILDHOOD, THEIR SOCIOECONOMIC STANDING, OR THE SAD STATE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. LEAVE, IF NOT, DEAD.

Now, if anyone else cares to explain to me exactly why I do not have the right to defend myself and my children, something the lowest rat and stray dog has, I am all ears.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby Qwertyuiopasd on Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:48 pm

LLR, I agree with you, but you don't have to be so rude to teripie. she's talking about how she does things, not how you should. you, for whatever reasons, have different experiences with break ins and experiences with crimminals.

please, stop yelling. it hurts my ears.
daftbeaker wrote:But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple' :moon:


Any statistical increase in the usage of the :idiot: emoticon since becoming Admin should not be considered significant, meaningful, or otherwise cause for worry.
User avatar
Qwertyuiopasd
Admirable Admiral Qwerty
 
Posts: 14353
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby teripie on Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:53 am

Dang LLR, you need a better neighborhood or some big dogs or something. Of course it's not always the neighborhood. Like I stated earlier, a few years back every house on my road got broken into, ransacked, and robbed. And of course the main things stolen were the guns. All my redneck neighbors were upset they lost their guns, there was a regular arsenal in the area! My house had/has dogs.....big dogs with attitudes. My house didn't get broken into and my guns didn't get stolen.

I never lock my doors. The lock on the front door is broken.
-----(\ /)------
-----(o.o)-----
----(> <)-----
This is Bunny.
Bunny, as cute and cuddley as he may appear, is bent on world domination.
To achieve this he has decided to start by taking over teh intarweb, a step towards his ultimate goal.
To help him complete his quest and therefore ensure bunny domination, copy and paste him into your sig
User avatar
teripie
Birthday Scribe
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:06 am
Location: Lost

Postby LibraLabRat on Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:28 am

Sorry for yelling. But one of the downsides of being military is that you can not afford to just move, and dont have the luxury of knowing the town you are moving into. It looked like a perfectly nice area. As far as the mugging, that was in New Orleans, and it happens all the time there.

The point I was making is it isnt paranoia when it has happened to me in the past, and I have no indications that it wont possibly happen in the future.

I am still waiting for the explanation from Cap that I do not have a right to self defense.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby Capellini on Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:15 am

I was unaware that the only possible means of self-defense was a gun.

I was also unaware that a person should be just handed a right not constitutionally allowed for because they want it real, real bad.
True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Capellini
Capolean Bone-apart
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: The State of Denial

Postby Dr. Otis Lansa on Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:32 am

Against a gun, pretty much the only means of self defence is... a gun. Especially at a range of more than a meter or two, where no cover is available.

Just a thought here (bear with a rambling Canuckle head), but I'd feel better with military-trained personnel packing weapons than Joe Untrained Average.

A hypothetical solution would be to have WELL-REGULATED volunteer militias set up in every state, where persons wishing to carry concealed weapons would be required to complete yearly training (2 or 3 days per year, possibly more for first-time owners). More advanced para-military training would be available for those who want it, but your basic handgun user would be trained in more that just the mechanics of a firearm; things like self-defence, self-restraint, gun protection (from theft), concealment techniques, etc.
Image
User avatar
Dr. Otis Lansa
Mystic of Meatball
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Canuckistan

Postby teripie on Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:37 am

Bringing up self defense gives me a chance to present this example of self defense.
http://www.chumfm.com/MorningShow/bits/march24.swf
-----(\ /)------
-----(o.o)-----
----(> <)-----
This is Bunny.
Bunny, as cute and cuddley as he may appear, is bent on world domination.
To achieve this he has decided to start by taking over teh intarweb, a step towards his ultimate goal.
To help him complete his quest and therefore ensure bunny domination, copy and paste him into your sig
User avatar
teripie
Birthday Scribe
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:06 am
Location: Lost

Postby LibraLabRat on Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:08 pm

Capellini wrote:I was unaware that the only possible means of self-defense was a gun.

I was also unaware that a person should be just handed a right not constitutionally allowed for because they want it real, real bad.


Have you ever noticed that you dont answer questions, but make disparaging comments instead?

Self defense. SHow me legal precendent where I am not allowed the RIGHT to defend myself. Also, show me how exactly that armed self defense is not a constitutional right. I am all ears.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby LibraLabRat on Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:45 pm

You know, this illustrates the dichotomy which caused me to start this thread: It is ok to imply the right to choose under privacy rights ( although abortion is not an explicit right anywhere in the Constitution) but you can narrowly define what should be taken as an explicit right to keep and bear arms as some kind of job description for a private militia that maybe possibly should be thought about in the future.

SO let me get this straight: While the right to privacy says nothing about a woman's right to choose ( even though during the founders time a woman was mere property anyway) and the Second Amendment is an explicit right to personal ownership of arms, obviously, one is more important than the other?

Just trying to understand, since obviously my poor paranoid brain is addled by too much gun lust and violent images.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby boghog on Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:47 pm

teripie wrote:Cape's got a point there. "A well regulated militia" hardly implies every Tom, Dick, and Harry can grab a gun and hit the streets. It's an old argument. It's all semantics.

In my reading, the first section ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,") is only explanatory material for the instruction in the second ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.")

The commas don't work no matter how you slice it (at least not by today's rules of usage), but I think that's the only way it can be split up and still be coherent.

Also, traditionally in important documents, they state the reasons for the decision (usually in the form of ten lines that all begin with "whereas"). They don't carry any weight beyond letting the reader know the intent behind the rule. e.g:

The Clerk of Geekytown wrote:Whereas, Joe Schmoe was a really cool guy,

and Whereas, Joe Schmoe deserves to have something really cool named after him,

Geekytown shall henceforth be named "Schmoeville".

No matter how un-cool the new Schmoeville is, it won't get its name automatically changed back to Geekytown.



It's the same thing in this case. The second amendment effectively says "We won't infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. We're doing this because we think a well-regulated militia is important." The part in italics serves to explain the first sentence, not modify or limit it.

In my mind, the second amendment is fairly clear, and LibraLabRat's likely right: many US gun laws are probably unconstitutional.

A top-down approach, however, wouldn't encounter the same roadblocks. If your aim is to get rid of the guns that are most likely to be used in a crime, I think the most effective gun control would start with looking at the gun manufacturers and the channels that exist to get the guns to criminals.

Now personally, I believe that firearms should be regulated. I consider myself a pacifist (albiet an untested one - I've never been in a "kill or be killed" situation) and I find the idea of taking any human life, even the life of a criminal, abhorrent. I think that completely eliminating firearms from a society, except for those with a real need for them, would do more good than harm.

But I acknowledge that most of the rest of the world probably does not share my views, and I acknowledge that my personal position on gun control runs counter to the second amendment.
Now Hypercaffeinated! Share and Enjoy!

Keep Saturn in Saturnalia!

You catch more flies with BS than you do with honey.
User avatar
boghog
Lord of Linguini
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:04 am
Location: Off yonder

Postby LibraLabRat on Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:52 pm

oK, Bog, you said:

Now personally, I believe that firearms should be regulated. I consider myself a pacifist (albiet an untested one - I've never been in a "kill or be killed" situation) and I find the idea of taking any human life, even the life of a criminal, abhorrent. I think that completely eliminating firearms from a society, except for those with a real need for them, would do more good than harm.

I have been in such situations. And let me tell you this, it is not a Bill of Needs. It is a Bill of Rights. Who gets to decide what I need? This is like the junk gun laws: Congressmen with armed guards telling people who live in bad, high crime neighborhoods that they shouldnt be allowed to buy inexpensive guns.......It smacks of class warfare.[/i]
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby anon1mat0 on Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:26 pm

Could we at least stop the mish-mash of issues here and split them in 3?

1. The right to defend yourself (Does it imply the right to bear arms? etc).
2. The right to have an armed militia (Does it make sense nowadays and if so what is the more effective way to pursue it? etc).
3. The 2nd amendment proper (Is it current? Does it make sense for the citizens of countries different from the US -Canada/LA/Australia/NZ/EU- ? wording, etc).
Nicolás
_________________
Violence is the diplomacy of the incompetent.
Hari Seldon

From Isaac Asimov's Foundation series
User avatar
anon1mat0
Gramigna Grand Admiral
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:30 pm
Location: South FL

PreviousNext

Return to Locked Posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest