 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Second Amendment
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: GUEST,DonMeixner Date: 03 Feb 11 - 10:45 PM Is it possible to give up the freedoms of second article of The Bill of Rights and not expect that the precedent will be set for some group to force us to give up another, like freedom of peaceable assembly or freedom of the press? Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: olddude Date: 03 Feb 11 - 11:46 PM I told the story before and I will tell it again when myself and two of my employees had to work late at that drug ridden, crime infested cancer clinic repairing their database. When that guy came out of the hedges with a hunting knife and went at the little blond girl who worked for me. Instead of killing me and having his way with the little blond he found himself staring down a .45 Colt pointed at his chest. He took off, he was unharmed and so were we. Now what would the rest of you do, tossed a rock at him? Beg him not to hurt you? Being kind, having a social conscience and considerate should never be confused with being a victim either. I said before I will say again, in the right hands a firearm can be a really good friend. The key is to do our best to make sure it stays in the right hands by laws that make sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: olddude Date: 04 Feb 11 - 12:05 AM and what ass puts a treatment center for drug addicts in the same location as cancer patients. Kinda asking for trouble. By the way the other person with me was Karen's sister who was an intern at the time working for me. He would have had lots of fun with two girls, or maybe he would have just robbed us. Point is, he never got the chance to find out did he. Oh and the police, after I called said "yea it is a bad area you should not work late at night" insane |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: GUEST,999 Date: 04 Feb 11 - 11:20 AM `Instead of killing me and having his way with the little blond he found himself staring down a .45 Colt pointed at his chest. He took off, he was unharmed and so were we. Now what would the rest of you do, tossed a rock at him? Beg him not to hurt you?` There are people here who would do just that, Dan. I ain`t one of `em. Message me your e-mail address, ok. BM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Don Firth Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:24 PM Because I contracted polio at the age of two, most of my life I walked with a pair of aluminum forearm crutches. Fortunately, I've only been threatened a couple of times. A brisk upward swing into the goolies with a crutch tends to bring such things to a quick and decisive halt. Lots of relatively safe alternatives to packing around a piece of lethal ordnance. Being alert and having a few options in mind when a threatening situation presents itself, and not being too fastidious about the well-being of someone who physically attacks you can save the day. Did it ever occur to you that, say, sitting across a table from someone who is making threats of physical mayhem, if you're sitting there twiddling nervously with a ball-point pen, you're all set up to sucker-punch the guy in the throat or face with the pen? I saw that effectively applied once. Lots of possibilities. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Bill D Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:35 PM Don Meixner asked yesterday: "Is it possible to give up the freedoms of second article of The Bill of Rights and not expect that the precedent will be set for some group to force us to give up another, like freedom of peaceable assembly or freedom of the press? " Of course it is, Don! That is the 'slippery slope' argument, and it just doesn't follow. Every idea must be debated on its own merits, and there is NO reason why reassessing the details of the 2nd amendment in light of societal changes would lead to limiting freedom of the press or any of the basic 'rights'. Notice that very few are even hinting at banning all firearms, and NO ONE believes it is even possible. We simply need to qualify the ambiguities that allow the NRA to claim that almost anything is permitted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: gnu Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:25 PM "Notice that very few are even hinting at banning all firearms, and NO ONE believes it is even possible." There ya go. Shooting yerself in the foot. Why not support a law that says it is a constitutional right to own guns so that the gunners will support proper regulations to control guns and gun owners. If ya don't, gun registration and gun owner regulations will be fought tooth and nail by the guuners all the way. The "NRA" ain't gonna let even the "possibility" of a firearm ban and confiscation happen.... and that is their main basis of support. (The Nazis forced firearm registration in the 30s so they could then contol the firearms. Much to the dismay of many.) If the anti-gunners supported a law that absolutely granted the right to own firearms (NOT automatic machine pistols and tanks) then the US could move toward a solution. Until that happens I suggest you stay alert at all times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Stringsinger Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:35 PM The Republican Party is unconstitutional because they are not mentioned in the Constitution. Same for Dems, Tory's, Whigs and other parties. Gun battles, duels, automatic weapons, and a lot of other stuff isn't either. The Constitution is and always will be open to someone's interpretation of what it said or meant. I tend to trust Jefferson and Madison. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: artbrooks Date: 04 Feb 11 - 06:15 PM As a point of historical fact, the Nazis did not "force gun registration in the 30s". This is a myth perpetrated by those who would like gun registration (which isn't being advocated by anyone) equated with totalitarian rule. Actually, gun laws under the Nazi government of Germany were laxer than those in effect under the Wiemar Republic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: gnu Date: 04 Feb 11 - 06:38 PM Art... you can say it any way you want but it still happened from 1919 to 1938. Here's the first link I found. To say that repealing the ban on ownership while requiring registration and permits regarding ownership and banning ownership by some (specifically Jews) was a "relaxing" of the laws is absurd and only detracts from the support of a compromise which may lead to a solution. Seriously, unless the anti-gunners realize they can never win with the attitude that they cannot trust their neighbours but they can trust the government... well... they are fucked and the situation they wish resolved will worsen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: olddude Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:02 PM "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: gnu Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:19 PM Dan... that is my main concern with Canuck gun laws. I applaud our laws with one execption, that being that the laws as written preclude "honest" citizens from defending their homes with guns. We have had an alarming rise in home invasions since the laws were put in place. I have posted to this effect on other threads, including the recount of a lad I knew who had his head cut off and his wife slashed to death. Gun laws are good but stupid gun laws are worse. The anti-gunners just can't seem to get the logic. Anyway, it's been done to death in many threads here and elsewhere. I have made my points many times, to no avail. I no longer have the time or patience to bother to try to reason with or educate the anti-gunners. Perhaps someday they will get their facts straight, get their shit together, get organized, get real and be a part of the solution. I ain't gonna hold my breath... while the gun manufacturers laugh all the way to the bank. People die every day because the anti-gunners can see beyond the barrel of the gun. It's sad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Bobert Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:39 PM Yeah, gn-ze, here in the Sates it's between 80 and 90 who die every day from guns... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Bill D Date: 04 Feb 11 - 08:39 PM Closer to 40, Bobert...but who's counting. and gno, gnu... it is **irrelevant** what the Wiemar Republic did, or the Nazis did. We are NOT them, and we have no need or tendency to BE them. Better control over guns and ammo does NOT = 'depriving "honest" citizens of their supposed 'rights'. And I guarantee you that even if you feel 'safer' from your government and from the extremely rare home invasion, having more & more guns out there will make you LESS safe in the long run. The more guns, the more access..legal or illegal... for those who can't be trusted and shouldn't be allowed near them! You can NEVER 'enforce the existing laws' well enough to prevent more & more violence. You want to just play the odds that YOU will be armed, ready and alert when a criminal decides to make you a target? Fine... there are millions & millions who could not even pretend to be able to own and use a firearm safely & responsibly. We'll just let THEM suffer while all the 'responsible' gun owners sit smugly, congratulating themselves on their preparedness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: GUEST,DonMeixner Date: 04 Feb 11 - 09:07 PM I disagree Bill. Precedent is one of the devices used to justify all manner of laws. One of the big worries of many members of the congress was how Bork, Thomas, Souter, Roberts, and Alito would stand on Stare Decisis or settled law. I followed carefully all those nominations. As I recall Bork felt all decisions should be revisited. He even stated there were some decisions he had made that he would reverse given the choice. Roberts felt that settled law should be left alone unless some compelling reason said to revisit it. They all nudged around the notion that once they started revisiting settled law a precedent was set to allow constant revision of settled law. I believe this was aimed at going after Roe vs. Wade. Does it follow that the dominoes would fall? Probably not but I don't want the opportunity to be given either. Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Ron Davies Date: 04 Feb 11 - 09:15 PM OK, fine, the little blonde was saved. Sorry, that still does not argue in favor of people outside the military and the police having semi-automatic pistols. So you have the pistol up against his chest. It seems possible he may not ask if it's a single-shot gun or a semi-automatic. You don't need a semi-automatic for the desired outcome of this scenario. And this story pales beside the steady stream of articles, with proven facts, about how semi-automatic pistols, often Glocks, are used in senseless carnage. I'm particularly struck by the article I cited from the WSJ where a student's Glock went off in his backpack and shot two people, one girl being shot in the head. Face it, semi-automatic pistols are much more likely to be used by the military, the police and gangsters (as well as unstable people like the AZ shooter) than by Sir Galahads. The public good which would come from restricting them to the police and military far outweighs incidents like the blonde story. And as I said, you don't need a semi-automatic for a happy end to that story. Any pistol will do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Bill D Date: 04 Feb 11 - 09:41 PM The solution, Don, is to be very careful who we elect so as to minimize the appointment of Borks... it is not to turn every household into a militia or armed camp. My point is that even *IF* we feel safer having 'lots' of guns, and threats from Bork-inspired idiots never happen, the proliferation of violence will continue as long as guns are easily acquired. What DO you consider a tolerable number of mass shootings? At some point, we have to institute ways to keep the dumb & incompetent safe...we must have restrictive laws like we do with highway laws. YOU may be able to drive 100MPH safely, but most cannot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: olddude Date: 04 Feb 11 - 09:53 PM Ron your just as dead from a wheel gun as a semi auto .. no difference. your logic doesn't hold, so instead of one weapon he carries several or uses a shotgun with 9 .38 cal pellets per 5 shot magazine .. dead is dead |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: olddude Date: 04 Feb 11 - 09:55 PM and the so what about the little blond, well tell that to Karen and see what she says to you ... Oh gee so what I didn't get killed by a crazy fucker with a knife .. nice comment .. if it were one of your family you would think different or maybe not I don't know ya |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: GUEST,DonMeixner Date: 04 Feb 11 - 10:37 PM Well Bill the genie is out of the bottle no doubt. And guns are here. If not guns something else cabable of mayhem will work for those wishing to do mayhem. It doesn't take a gun and frankly it is probably easier without one. Tim McVeigh didn't use a gun. He used a rented truck and farm supplies. We have to enforce the laws as written and put away the criminals when the laws are broken. Committing a crime with a gun in Virginia must carry the same weight as committing a crime with a gun in NY. If a magazine comes with nine rounds then a magazine in same gun with ten rounds in the mag should be worth mandatory jail time. No hobbyist has the need to make a semi auto loader full auto. A person with a pistol should require a permit everywhere in the country and the permit should require training to the same strict standard everywhere in the country. Of course that's just my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: olddude Date: 05 Feb 11 - 12:28 PM Well if being a liberal (which I pretty much thought I was more of) means tossing out the Constitution or rewriting it then count me in the card carrying conservative side of the fence. Me I think those guys like Jefferson got it right all the way around. Anymore I just see way too much of this, "wow they should not be allowed to say that (bam lets get rid of freedom of speech)", Hey we don't like religion (lets get rid of the freedom of religion) and so it goes ... yup I am a card carrying conservative for sure. I like my dad's version of America I do |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Feb 11 - 12:53 PM I don't see why any thinking person has to define himself as either "a liberal" or "a conservative". To do so, after all, would seem to imply that rather than thinking creatively and independently and judging each situation on its own merits, he merely reacts according to a prearranged script. ;-) Gosh!!! Maybe that's the problem in politics these days. Ya think so? I do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: GUEST,999 Date: 05 Feb 11 - 01:11 PM `Gosh!!! Maybe that's the problem in politics these days. Ya think so?` No, I do not. Many people, myself included, think about the issue and come down where we land on it. On many issues I`d be conservative or even ultra-conservative. On others, I`d be liberal or damned near communist. It all doesn`t fit into tidy boxes and neither do we. IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Jeri Date: 05 Feb 11 - 01:20 PM No labels. Labels are for stupid people so they don't have to think and can just figure things out by lumping. I think we DO have people who do that here, but most of them I can think of are trolls, or are into RO*, or both. I don't fit in a mold. I don't think most people do, but I also think most people don't get involved in threads such as this. *RO: "Recreational Outrage" describes when a poster expresses righteous indignation and gets highly worked up (outraged) over some issue, typically some news occurrence that is completely irrelevant to the person's own life and has no effect on that poster personally. The poster derives (recreational) satisfaction from expressing outrage and moral indignation, frequently including a sense of moral superiority, thus differentiating Recreational Outrage from other forms of outrage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Feb 11 - 02:04 PM Ah, yes...recreational outrage. ;-) There's a lot of that around here. It gives restless minds much to chew on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Ebbie Date: 05 Feb 11 - 02:18 PM The current edition of Time Magazine (Volume 177 No. 3) has several excellent articles on the Tucson tragedy. One, titled 'Fire Away' asks such questions as: 'How could Jared Loughner be considered too dangerous to attend community college but not too dangerous to buy a Glock? Why are we allowed to pack heat to a Safeway when we can't pack shampoo in our carry ons?' Ebbie asks: Would we all feel safer if everyone who wished to carried guns onto our airplanes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: GUEST,999 Date: 05 Feb 11 - 02:32 PM Years back when skyjacking entered the lexicon, Pat Paulsen suggested the way to stop it was to give loaded guns to eveyone who boarded the plane. He was a comedian. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: GUEST,999 Date: 05 Feb 11 - 02:46 PM I think it was Tom Clancy who--in one of his books--pointed out (through a character) that the Constitution and its Amendments was not ever meant to be a suicide pact. The notion that people cannot defend their homes--as pointed out by Gnu (I think) is a serious flaw. The perp has no damned business being there in the first place, but bleeding hearts--I love using that term because I have been accused of it so often myself--will talk then about socio-cultural-economic backgrounds, etc. F$ck that. The time to handle that stuff is BEFORE the crime. Afterwards, it`s too late for both parties. Weapons--and that`s what guns are--can be used as toys (target practice), tools (getting food) or offensive things. We see so much of it on TV, it`s no wonder people think it`s OK to carry guns. Most people can`t shoot worth shit, but they carry them. Meanwhile, we sure are strict on folks who get caught with nunchaku. I wish I knew what the answer is--and I wish you folks did too. However, . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Don Firth Date: 05 Feb 11 - 09:29 PM I don't know if the law is still on the books, but one could get busted for carrying a switchblade knife. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Bobert Date: 05 Feb 11 - 10:13 PM Hey, if everyone on the plane has a gun then pull over to the next cloud and let my ass off... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: olddude Date: 05 Feb 11 - 10:58 PM Don a switch blade knife (technically called an automatic knife) is indeed illegal .. however one can get a collector permit ... Now a spring assisted knife, which is pretty much the exact same thing but has a thumb post instead of a button is absolutely legal ... frankly there is no difference |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: olddude Date: 05 Feb 11 - 11:02 PM Oh and i carry one of those also .. it makes the best on handed fish gutting knife anywhere, especially good when my line get tangled and I have to cut out the birds nest I can do it with one hand on the pole. (spring assisted that is not an automatic) There is virtually no difference like I said except for the thumb post to push down to engage instead of a button. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: olddude Date: 05 Feb 11 - 11:12 PM I also know how to fight with one since along with Marshal arts, handguns, I also taught sharp edged weapons to military, police and civilians. one learns and masters the tools of violence to be the most peaceful |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Ebbie Date: 06 Feb 11 - 03:24 AM Ah, Oldster. They do say that if you're ready for a war, war will come. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Feb 11 - 08:30 AM I note that while it is assumed in the Second Amendment that there is a preexisting right to "keep and bear Arms" which "shall not be infringed", there is no suggestion that there is a right to use those arms, as opposed to keeping them handy in case militia duty requires them to be produced... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Bobert Date: 06 Feb 11 - 09:24 AM Interesting observation, McG... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Ron Davies Date: 06 Feb 11 - 10:14 AM Old-- Wrong. If you have your pistol out and pointed at his chest before he has any weapon out, as in your story, you have the advantage. And he will know this. And besides, your pulp-fiction type story is far less frequent than the pack-back article I cited. My Jan says she hears about the back-pack type tragedy all the time. It's the kind of thing they talk about on TV news--which she watches. There is no reason for people outside the police and military to have semi-automatic pistols.. And you have provided no argument that there is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Ron Davies Date: 06 Feb 11 - 10:21 AM Remember, Old, your man had a knife. You said nothing about a gun. You have to stick with your original story, or your story does become pulp fiction. The power of your story was that it was real and happened to you. And as I said, in your story you did not need a semi-automatic for the desired outcome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Ron Davies Date: 06 Feb 11 - 10:22 AM I meant, of course, "before he has any gun out". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Feb 11 - 10:40 AM From Wikipedia: Switzerland Police statistics for the year 2006[12] records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.[13] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Feb 11 - 10:47 AM Gun Deaths - International Comparisons Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated): Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Feb 11 - 10:52 AM Sorry about the stat numbers not lining up. It is evident from those figures that there is a problem. Fixed table. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: olddude Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:13 AM Ebbie that is why carrying a pocket watch is a lot more fun. Me I study war no more. But I still enjoy shooting targets. Also remember I was in law enforcement for a time, one better know such things when you work there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:14 AM Interesting figures, 999. The USA is clearly a society in crisis in a number of respects. Finland and Switzerland (as well as the USA) have a disproportionately high suicide rate. In the case of Finland, I think it may be due to the long winters causing depression, but I don't know what the cause of it would be in Switzerland. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:21 AM Well, they have an awful lot of guns in Switzerland, with people being required to have one for what in the States would be called "a well regulated militia", which is handy if they want to kill themselves. It seems Swiss people don't have this tendency to choose to use them on each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: pdq Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:22 AM The US has problems, but we need to put them in perspective. The intentional homocide rate in the US is 5.0 per 100,000 population. Others are.. World 7.6 Mexico 15 El Salvador 71 Chihuahua 74 (part of Mexico) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:27 AM Thanks to the person who fixed the table. Good eye, LH. I don`t know how to interpret the data, but I will posit that the availability of guns leads to the use of guns as a means--a quick one--of killing oneself. I wonder if there would be a similar co-relation in other areas not mentioned. I`ll check. I`ve spent five years of my life in northern areas, and those winters sure can be depressing. Anyway, I`ll go look. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:32 AM "They do say that if you're ready for a war, war will come." That does sometimes happen, Ebbie. One country, for example, decides to increase the size of its fleet (as Germany began doing in the early 20th Century. Its potential competitors in that respect reacted by increasing the size of their fleets, the UK being particularly concerned that the Germans should not be allowed to rival the British Navy. The increase in launchings of new ships by the British worried the Germans, so they increased their shipbuilding even more. That really worried the English, so they redoubled their efforts to stay well ahead of the Germans....and so on...and so on... So you had a fullblown naval race underway which cost both nations an incredible amount of money and eventually turned them into deadly enemies. All for nothing. Those bloody damned expensive ships were the main reason that the UK decided to fight the Germans in WWI....after having been allies of those same Germans for generations due to having a common enemy: France. ;-) So in this case the fact that the Germans and British were getting ready for a war (and so was everyone else, by the way) did inevitably finally lead to a war worse than any of them could ever have imagined. So, yes, there's something to be said for your argument. Then there's the psychic angle of visualizing a possible future all the time and thus attracting it...but I won't get into that. It would drive the meat and potatoes people here up the wall. ;-) Seems to me that a sensible compromise would be to have a gun, know how to use it properly, and keep it in a safe place for if you should ever need it...but not be constantly obsessed with the issue and having "Make my day!" fantasies about it. That's if you want to have a gun... If you don't, just don't worry about it. Chances are fairly good that you will never have occasion to use one. I think the wisest course a country can follow regarding being "ready for a war" is to maintain a relatively small military force that is clearly no overt threat to one's neighbours...but is exceedingly well trained and ready at all times if needed for defense. That's the middle ground between having an arms race and being completely unprepared. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:33 AM Surely "put in perspective" means compared with countries which have a broadly similar level of prosperity and settled society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:40 AM pdq, do your figures relate to gun use in the homocide, or are they to do with ALL homocides regardless of whether the means of offing the person was poison, baseball bat, etc (qm) |
