Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: Gun ban - yep already

kendall 21 Nov 08 - 01:25 PM
Bill D 21 Nov 08 - 11:38 AM
Rapparee 21 Nov 08 - 11:15 AM
goatfell 21 Nov 08 - 09:46 AM
Rapparee 21 Nov 08 - 09:26 AM
kendall 21 Nov 08 - 08:33 AM
Rapparee 20 Nov 08 - 11:08 PM
katlaughing 20 Nov 08 - 10:54 PM
Rapparee 20 Nov 08 - 10:06 PM
Rapparee 20 Nov 08 - 09:59 PM
Rapparee 20 Nov 08 - 09:54 PM
Rapparee 20 Nov 08 - 09:39 PM
katlaughing 20 Nov 08 - 09:15 PM
pdq 20 Nov 08 - 08:52 PM
Bill D 20 Nov 08 - 08:42 PM
pdq 20 Nov 08 - 08:02 PM
Bill D 20 Nov 08 - 07:58 PM
Bill D 20 Nov 08 - 07:57 PM
Little Hawk 20 Nov 08 - 07:44 PM
artbrooks 20 Nov 08 - 07:37 PM
kendall 20 Nov 08 - 07:22 PM
pdq 20 Nov 08 - 07:11 PM
Bill D 20 Nov 08 - 07:00 PM
Bill D 20 Nov 08 - 06:57 PM
Big Mick 20 Nov 08 - 06:57 PM
Rapparee 20 Nov 08 - 06:54 PM
Bill D 20 Nov 08 - 06:54 PM
Bill D 20 Nov 08 - 06:43 PM
Big Mick 20 Nov 08 - 06:38 PM
Bill D 20 Nov 08 - 06:22 PM
Big Mick 20 Nov 08 - 06:21 PM
GUEST,Steve in Idaho 20 Nov 08 - 06:21 PM
wysiwyg 20 Nov 08 - 06:03 PM
Rapparee 20 Nov 08 - 05:14 PM
Bill D 20 Nov 08 - 04:57 PM
artbrooks 20 Nov 08 - 04:47 PM
Wesley S 20 Nov 08 - 04:41 PM
Big Mick 20 Nov 08 - 04:40 PM
Big Mick 20 Nov 08 - 04:33 PM
Bill D 20 Nov 08 - 04:31 PM
Wesley S 20 Nov 08 - 04:22 PM
olddude 20 Nov 08 - 04:21 PM
pdq 20 Nov 08 - 03:50 PM
olddude 20 Nov 08 - 03:46 PM
Big Mick 20 Nov 08 - 03:37 PM
Uncle_DaveO 20 Nov 08 - 03:23 PM
beardedbruce 20 Nov 08 - 03:20 PM
Big Mick 20 Nov 08 - 01:12 PM
Big Mick 20 Nov 08 - 01:04 PM
katlaughing 20 Nov 08 - 12:52 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: kendall
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 01:25 PM

Let's simplify this problem.
On the one hand, we have Mr. Law abiding American.
On the other, a dirtbag who steals, and or kills to feed a drug habit.

Mr. Law abiding man will not own a gun because it is against a local ordinance. Mr. Dirtbag couldn't care less about local laws, and will own a gun to give him an edge.
Does that make sense? All it does is make Mr. Law abiding American vulnerable because the dirtbag knows most people are not armed.
When Florida passed its right to carry law, the crime rate nosedived.What does that tell you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 11:38 AM

*waking up with lots to read*

Thanks, Rapaire...those are the kind of thoughts & information I (we) need to keep thinking about the problem. There is obviously no simplistic solution, but there are intermediate ways, not fully utilized yet, to steer us toward saner controls.

I am not convinced that we can get to a 'comfortable' situation without a few more bans/controls/regulations....but I know that we'd better try.

And yeah... I KNOW that the situation in Pocatello, Idaho is quite different from DC or LA or Detroit. I also know that many of the illegal guns in MY area are purchased 'legally' in states to the south of us and sort of 'find their way' into the wrong hands.
   The situation is very much like drugs....as long as there is a demand, someone will try to provide a supply. Once they reach their destination, they WILL be used......which is why many, including myself, would like to see the supply controlled better.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 11:15 AM

When you see the French and German police carrying submachine guns (machine pistols) on a regular basis; when you see gun shops in France with FALN "assault rifles" on display in their front windows; when you ask for gun flints (for a flintlock) at a gun store in France and owner doesn't even know what you're talking about; when a 1998 Oxfam reports shows that between 1995 and 1997 the UK sold small arms to over 100 countries; when Viet Nam has reportedly transferred weapons to Myanmar; when Lebanon, Liberia, Burkina Faso, and Niger have transferred weapons to Sierra Leone; when Namibia has transferred them to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Angola; Burkina Faso to Benin...and 88% of the world trade in military small arms comes from the five permanent members of the US Security Council....

No, I don't worry about why other countries are "frightened" of the US.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: goatfell
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 09:46 AM

and then you wonder why the rest of the world well some of them are frightened of you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 09:26 AM

State Constitutional provisions regarding arms:

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Alaska: 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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.

California: No provision.

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
      (b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
      (c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
      (d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.

Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

Hawaii: 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. Art. I, § 17 (enacted 1959).

Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

Iowa: No provision.

Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ...
      Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.
   
Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

Maryland: No provision.

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

Minnesota: No provision.

Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.

Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

New Jersey: No provision.

New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

New York: No provision.

North Carolina: 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

South Carolina: 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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art.

Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: kendall
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 08:33 AM

Bill, I'm glad you picked up on what I said about Maine's constitution. I have a couple of friends who are "gun nuts", and I have tried to point out to them that conditions in North Jockstrap Maine are quite different from those in Harlem, and that means there must be different laws. It always falls on deaf ears because they just don't care what happens in Harlem.If people want to kill themselves or another resident of Harlem, tough. Just don't try to take my gun. They choose to live there don't they? (They are both republicans)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 11:08 PM

I know of a teen in Ohio who was NOT pressured by his parents to match his brother or anything like that, but to succeed in his own way. The family was close, and one day after school the teen went into the garage with a muzzle loading shotgun he'd made (from a kit) with his dad and...well, no one could figure out why and even today no one knows why. He did mention to his friends, "I won't be at school tomorrow" but that was all the indication they had and they thought that the family was taking a day trip or something.

Some things aren't meant to be known, I guess. The family moved out of town within a year and I've lost track of them. A tragedy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 10:54 PM

Rapaire, good information. Some suicides come from other factors like parents' pressure such as a news item I posted about years ago involving a 14 year old in WY who was afraid to tell his parents he'd made less than "A"s on his report card, locked himself in the bathroom and blew his brains out as he did with his dad's hunting rifle.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 10:06 PM

I'm not trying to dominate this discussion, but I'm simply putting thoughts down as they come to me.

The single most important thing we could do is to change our ways of thinking about weapons and violence. I leave you to search and consider the case of Switzerland and the Swiss armed forces.

I do know something about weapons and I've been a shooter, as I said before, for better than fifty years. My mother insisted that my two brothers, my sister, and I all take shooting instruction at the local rifle range so that we would know about firearms ("There are too damned many of them out there and I want you kids to know enough to be safe around them.") As a result we have never had an "accident" with a weapon and we don't look upon them as some sort of holy grail.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 09:59 PM

There are currently laws on the books in some states, such as California, which prohibit the storage of weapons in a way that they are accessible to children.

No, this does not need to prevent them from being quickly available to stop a home invasion or other case of legitimate self-defense. It DOES require forethought, however.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 09:54 PM

How can we prevent suicides? Well, to start with we could pay closer attention to each other and learn to recognize the symptoms that can lead to suicide, such as these:

Warning Signs of Suicide

    * Ideation (thinking, talking or wishing about suicide)
    * Substance use or abuse (increased use or change in substance)
    * Puposelessness (no sense of purpose or belonging)
    * Anger
    * Trapped (feeling like there is no way out)
    * Hopelessness (there is nothing to live for, no hope or optimism)
    * Withdrawal (from family, friends, work, school, activities, hobbies)
    * Anxiety (restlessness, irritability, agitation)
    * Recklessness (high risk-taking behavior)
    * Mood disturbance (dramatic changes in mood)
    * Talking about suicide.
    * Looking for ways to die (internet searches for how to commit suicide, looking for guns, pills, etc.)
    * Statements about hopelessness, helplessness, or worthlessness.
    * Preoccupation with death.
    * Suddenly happier, calmer.
    * Loss of interest in things one cares about.
    * Visiting or calling people one cares about.
    * Making arrangements; setting one's affairs in order.
    * Giving things away, such as prized possessions.

And we could learn to care about each other.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 09:39 PM

Oh, I don't think people have gotten much worse. There's just more of them.

Bill, this is a very complex issue. It includes the difference between urban (e.g., LA, DC) and rural (e.g., Pocatello, ID; Quincy, IN; Luray, VA; Belle Fouche, SD, even Grand Rapids, MI) culture. The media also have a not-inconsequential part to play from the time of "The Great Train Robbery" to the present in the glorification of violence and weapons as ends in themselves. So does the dime novels of the 19th Century.

The last time someone pulled a gun on the police (or anyone else) here the cop Tasered him (the gun turned out to be a toy from which the orange "tip" had been removed). That was two weeks ago. The last time the police shot and killed someone was about two years ago: police and a probation officer went to check on a guy who had missed his probation appointment and he came out of a room shooting (everyone involved immediately went on "administrative leave" and psychological counseling until the investigation was complete).

When was the last time someone shot at someone else in DC? In South Central?

Where I grew up "a gun behind the door meant meat on the table" and still does. It does out here, too -- there are about 60,000 people in this immediate area, working out to about 12,000 households and it's estimated that there is an average of four (4) firearms per household. No one is afraid of their neighbor, and while there are places I would really rather not go they are apartment buildings and bars instead of entire neighborhoods.

I really think that one of the first things that MUST be done is break up the idea that violence and weapons are a solution and not simply a tool. When a country feels threatened and so says it has the "right" to attack another country that sends the message that violence is okay -- and it contravenes the court case in Indiana (among other places) in which a man who had his car break down in a "bad" neighborhood in Indianapolis shot and killed a man more than fifty feet away because "he felt threatened." When is it correct for a country to do what you as an individual are prohibited from doing? (The Hoosier Supreme Court quite rightly upheld the murder conviction of the shooter.)

As for fearing my government, well, you bet I do! If the USA Patriot Act, the warrantless surveillance and wiretaps, and the other "security" laws don't demonstrate that the government will ride roughshod over the Bill of Rights if it can (and remember, even Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus) you have more faith in the lawmakers than I do.

I most certainly think that it is possible to work the problems out in a rational way which is satisfactory to all but the most fanatical on both sides of the issue.

But it won't be done by screaming at each other.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 09:15 PM

For every news story of "73 year old liquor store clerk chases out robber with a 38", there are 10 stories of clerks being shot BY robbers for attempting to reach beneath the counter.

I hate to just sound like I am trying to **ban guns**....what I want is real, detailed proposals by those who DO understand firearms about how to keep the benefits and avoid most of the dangers. ....and I do NOT mean just repeating the mantra of "enforce the laws we have". Ask ANY police dept. how easy that is.


Exactly. IF you don't want guns banned, and that would admittedly be near to impossible, what solutions do you offer, any of you, to combat the misuse of firearms? Legally owning a gun doesn't stop accidents of kids killing kids playing with said guns or a kid coming home and using his dad's hunting rifle to commit suicide. HOW do we stop those kinds of things from happening and the things Bill noted above?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: pdq
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 08:52 PM

Since the US Constitution was signed, guns have gotten much better.

People have gotten much worse.

That is the problem behind the problems.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 08:42 PM

yes...we know how it works...we are wondering whether any of those are worth bothering with.


I see that many of the 'voices' quoted by Rap in the early days were still very much concerned with the possibility of needing to protect the citizens FROM their own government. In those days, that was a natural worry....after all, they had just finished rebelling against an unjust rule. As we come down to some later opinions, the tone changes a little.

I don't see the argument offered much these days that we, the people need the option of resisting our elected govt. by force of arms.....except by self-proclaimed right-wing 'militias' who reject almost any control from above. Mostly, I see claims of 'self defense' and security in the home to be the major 'reasons', with the 2nd amendment used as an absolute guarantee, no matter what objections are raised.

   What we have seen in the last 30-40 years is a different class of lawbreaker getting access to a different class of weapon. Urban gangs used to just fight...or maybe use knives. Now, in some places,14 year old kids are expected to acquire and use guns, and simple arguements are settled with drive-bys. I do see why many folks would at least THINK of protecting themselves with arms equal to those carried by criminals....I just don't see many instances of that working out.
For every news story of "73 year old liquor store clerk chases out robber with a 38", there are 10 stories of clerks being shot BY robbers for attempting to reach beneath the counter.

I hate to just sound like I am trying to **ban guns**....what I want is real, detailed proposals by those who DO understand firearms about how to keep the benefits and avoid most of the dangers. ....and I do NOT mean just repeating the mantra of "enforce the laws we have". Ask ANY police dept. how easy that is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: pdq
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 08:02 PM

The Amendment Process


"There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

*        Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
*        Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
*        Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
*        Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 07:58 PM

(still reading and mulling the quotes Rap posted)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 07:57 PM

Gee LH...that is sure helpful.

PDQ...I am well aware that it would be difficult to change anything. The NRA would spend millions and say anything to keep things as they are. Of course we need to put money into anti-gang stuff and better law enforcement....but does that mean nothing else shoud be discussed?

Kendall...Maine is hardly a standard case for evaluating the situation. And, the Maine constitution is 'almost' as ambiguous as the US one.
Which leads to the question of whether individual states 'should' have the right to different regulations....like the DC one which was struck down


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 07:44 PM

What I find really disturbing is the continuing ban on privately-owned tactical nukes. You know, the hand-held variety? I really cannot see why the general public cannot be trusted to handle things like that responsibly, specially those living in gated communities who, after all, need protection from poor people and illegal immigrants and other such undesirables.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 07:37 PM

Mick, as a student of history, this statement has me a bit confused: "The second option is to overturn the amendment using the process. That has been tried and failed miserably. It will continue to fail." When, exactly, was there an organized effort, which is to say when was a bill submitted in Congress to amend the Constitution to change or eliminate the 2nd Amendment that got past the appropriate committee and subjected to debate on the Floor?

Please understand, I have no interest in eliminating this right, but I think it still needs a great deal of clarification. US vs Miller (1939) and Parker vs DC (2008) are contradictory in many ways, and Parker did not overturn Miller. Both decisions are very narrow interpretations of specific statutes. By not stating that the Militia Clause is no longer valid, and that the rest of the Amendment stands on its own, the Supreme just left the door open for continued (and continuous) litigation. For example, it is quite easy to make an argument that the legal ban of ownership of automatic weapons is unconstitutional, since they certainly are much closer to meeting the description of having "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"(Miller) than the sawed-off shotgun at issue in 1939.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: kendall
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 07:22 PM

The constitution of Maine says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall never be questioned."
That may look radical until you consider that Maine is one of the safest states in the union.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: pdq
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 07:11 PM

"I don't see anyone advocating deleting any of the Bill of Righs except gun ownership by the masses."

Fine. Get your state's House and Senate to write and approve an amendment to the US Constitution. Then get the required majority of states to join you. Then have it rattified.

Takes time? It is supposed to.

Besides, you will find only about 20% of the population is on your side. Too bad. Best put that effort into anti-gang units and other types of law enforcement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 07:00 PM

wow...now Rapaire has given me many an item to read and mull over...I guess I'd better do that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:57 PM

Mick...I don't see anyone advocating deleting any of the Bill of Rights except gun ownership by the masses.

What I do see is many not even wanting to see that one discussed or debated 'on its own merits'. They don't wish the question to be raised. I do see why.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:57 PM

I am not trying to define away opinions. I am making the point, and you evade it at every opportunity, that no matter how many "feelings" you have, and no matter how logical you think your arguments sound, the fact is that the Constitution grants me a right, a right that has been responsibly exercised by the overwhelming majority of gun owners for the history of this country, and in order for you to change that right you have two options. One is to litigate on the meaning. That was tried and it was found that the right to keep and bear arms refers to a private right. The second option is to overturn the amendment using the process. That has been tried and failed miserably. It will continue to fail.

One of the reasons I am so strident on this issue is that I tire of seeing our party, and the middle class, suffering as a result of the Roves, Bushs, and their ilk using this as a wedge. We act as though private gun ownership is at the root of inner city and rural poverty, crime, ciolence and a poor education system. The facts are that spending so much time on an issue that, if you were successful, wouldn't affect those things in a positive way. In fact there is some pretty good evidence that it would have the opposite effect.

Got to go to practice,

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:54 PM

Well, I find that those who wrote the US Constitution seem to have envisioned a military establishment more like Switzerland's than what we have:

    * "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
      — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

    * "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
      -- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

    * "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
      -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

    * If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
      -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

    * "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
      -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

    * "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
      --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

    * "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
      --John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

    * "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
      --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

    * "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
      --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    * "Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
      --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    * "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
      -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

    * "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
      -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

    * "The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
      -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

    * "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
      -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

    * " ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
      -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

    * " ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
      -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

    * "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
      -- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

    * "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
      -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

    * "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
      -- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

    * "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
      -- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

    * "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
      -- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

    * "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
      -- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

    * " ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."
      -- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

    * "The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
      -- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

    * "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
      --Samuel Adams


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:54 PM

Steve... I do know 'there are millions of responsible gun owners out there'. I also know that under certain circumstances, it can be reasonable for some of the 'responsible' ones to own 'some' types of weapons. But even you no doubt realize that everyone in YOUR area is either NOT responsible, or, if they ARE honest, law-abiding folks, are not all competent to own and use firearms. Even *I*, living where I do, know that there are dangerous people in my neighborhood....but I can't see how my having a gun or two would make me safer.
   We need ways to sort out this situation. YOU can't go riding about, protecting all those who can't be trusted with a gun..... how do we solve this? It's not just philosophical question...it needs a practical solution.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:43 PM

Cross posting sure gets awkward..

Mick... your right to "keep & bear" is currently in place simply because opponents have not found quite enough support to challenge it and clarify that amendment.

The amendment, as stated, is quite ambiguous. The pairing of the necessity of an organized militia with making 'arms' available to them just does not address the situation we face today. In the 1780s & 90s, a 'militia' was often assembled by just putting out a call for locals to bring their muskets and come help. In those cases, it was obvious that owning a weapon or two made sense.
Now, we have a 'militia' of organized form, with weapons (mostly standardized) issued BY the government, to avoid chaos. It makes no sense to tell me not to 'speculate' about what the Founders would do in today's world! I can't imagine that they would want 200 million folks toting various weapons, ready to repel ..... something.

   But....250+ years of folks getting used to guns, some for quite valid reasons, even as the types and power of weapons has changed radically and even after society has also changed radically, ... has led to the IDEA that they should continue 'keeping' them, with few limitations.

You can argue your opinion, but you can't just DEFINE away the opinions of all those who see MY point.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:38 PM

Bill D said:

Each would have to be debated on it's own merits.


Right. And that means that you would have to justify the taking away of a right granted in the Bill of Rights. I would argue that those are, in fact, the cornerstones of the whole process.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:22 PM

Rap...those are not the same category of 'rights'. You can't defend guns simply as one item in a non-negotiable list. Each would have to be debated on it's own merits.

Some things often wanted as 'rights' are merely 'privileges'. There are perfectly good reasons for some folks to have some guns... I assert that there SHOULD be no blanket 'right' for almost anyone to have almost ANY gun. I also believe that Habeas corpus is a bit more important.

(Why, thank you, Susan...hi there!)

as we can see, there are folks on both sides of the debate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:21 PM

Maybe I didn't make it clear, Bill. The fact that I want the laws, is not the germane point. The fact that I already have the Constitutional Right, is the germane point. When you speculate on what the Founders would do, all you have to do is to look at how hard it is to change a Constitutionally granted right. I have the right to keep and bear arms. For anyone to take that right, the burden of proof as to the reason is on them. And no one yet has demonstrated how taking away the right of lawful, responsible, gun owners to their weapons would affect in a positive way the problems they seek to solve.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: GUEST,Steve in Idaho
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:21 PM

I just love this space! LOL - It's Assault TYPE weapons that is the subject of this thread!

You know - the only thing I have NEEDED is the love of Jesus Christ. And He has been able to give me hope. The rest, other than love, food and water, clothing, and shelter, are all wants. :-)

At one time I needed Ferrara's guitar, and she allowed me to borrow it, and other than that I'm good to go.

BillD - there are millions of responsible gun owners out there. And it is a sad fact that a couple will abuse it and make life miserable for the rest of us. Nature of the beast I'm thinking. I know you have lived in the city and never had need of a weapon. Good on you Brother. Where I live, due to high unemployment, a large influx of folks from other spaces, and the rate of crime has shot up dramatically. We experience either a drive by shooting, a home invasion robbery, a bank robbery, or other related crimes on a nearly daily basis here. It is only responsible to be armed.

I would never use any of my assault TYPE weapons to stop someone invading my home with harm on their mind. I've a nice little 12 gauge pump shotgun for that. The other rifles would shoot clear through the home and endanger my neighbors. The shotgun is loaded with what will only pass through the walls and stop in the brick siding.

I certainly understand the emotions attached to this - but it's my opinion that no matter what our President elect does - he is going to finaly get us out of Iraq. And I praise Jesus for getting him elected to do that.

Lord bless ya
Steve


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:03 PM

I'm with Bill. Almost word for word.

(hey Bill)

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 05:14 PM

But Mick (and you, and I) also have the right to petition the government for redress, to peacefully assemble, to be secure in our homes, to enjoy habeas corpus, and so forth. You may not need the right to a speedy trial now or ever, but do you want to give it up?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:57 PM

*grin*...Mick...you just proved my point. You are pointing out that you WANT them, and like laws to be read to give you that access. Folks DO still argue about that "Constitutional" right, and how it was meant. (I can't 'prove' how the framers would write it today, but I very much doubt they'd have left it that vague if they'd seen an AK-47!)

I can demonstrate irrefutably that, if all guns were taken away from private citizens, there WOULD be a really, really major decline in deaths from gunshots, and I'd bet you'd admit there would be an overall decline in violent deaths generally.
   All we are debating is whether it would be worth it. It is not something anyone CAN demonstrate without actually doing the test.

(and the car metaphor don't cut it.... in this society there is MUCH more obviously a 'need' for cars than guns. I can't easily get to the Getaway unless the are cars available, but I can get food and, because I HAVE a car, I don't need to be in many situations where I'd need a gun!)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:47 PM

FYI
Any weapon capable of continuous fire, with or without a single-shot option, is an automatic weapon. A machine gun is an automatic weapon, but not all automatic weapons are machine guns. A machine gun, as the term is used in and by the military, and an assault rifle (the military really doesn't use either this term or "assault weapon") are two very different things. A machine gun is a weapon that is capable of very high rates of fire due to the fact that it is fed by belted ammunition. It may be capable of firing in a single-shot mode, but continuous fire (practically speaking, repeated 4-6 round bursts) is the default. An assault rifle's default mode is single-shot, aimed fire. Neither the current version of the M-16 rifle (the M-16A2) nor the more recent M-4 carbine has an automatic fire mode, although they do have a 3-shot alternative to the single-shot. The M-4A1 can fire automatically. Although their cyclic rate of fire is close to that of a machine gun (and greater than that of the venerable M-2 .50 cal machine gun), the actual, sustained, rate is much lower because of the need to replace the magazine every 30 shots.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:41 PM

Believe me Mick - I'm not suggesting that anything be banned. It's just that PDQ made an unreasonable comparision.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:40 PM

But see, Bill, there you go again with the need piece. Whether or not you think I need a weapon, or whether you agree with why I need a weapon, is no more germane than if I told you that there is no need for you to drive a car. I already have the right to own weapons, and to do so without defining why I have them. In order for folks to say I don't need them, and make me give up my CONSTITUTIONAL right to own them, there has to be a compelling NEED on behalf of society. No one has demonstrated yet how the act of taking the right to own weapons from law abiding, responsible gun owners will affect in a positive way the issues that are spawning the debate. The burden isn't on us. It is on those that want to limit my access to a right I already have.

And it goes on and on. Anyone want to talk about what makes music folk music for awhile?

Mick
over and out


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:33 PM

Fair enough, Wes. But Rap is talking about the rate of fire. How about my 7mm magnum. It fires one round each time you pull the trigger. It is a pure sporting arm, used for long range deer hunting ...... unless I were to use it as a sniper rifle, in which case it's ballistics make it one helluva long range weapon. I am a law abiding citizen, so that is not what I use it for. Is it an "assault rifle"? Nope. Could it be used for devastating effect? Yep. Would I rather have a shotgun at close range? Yep. Is it an assault weapon? Nope, it's for hunting.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:31 PM

"What is being banned will fire one shot each time you pull the trigger."

Nothing **IS** being banned.... someone is just talking about the idea.

but.... blam,blam,blam,blam,blam,blam,blam,blam...etc.

Since you can "pull the trigger" on most of those weapons just as fast as you can read the line above aloud, it is still a pretty effective weapon. I fail to see why anyone outside the police force or military needs one. Deer don't usually wait for shots 2-7.
   *IF*, as Steve suggests, it is just 'fun' to go out in the desert and blast some innocent cactus, I still don't see why anyone needs one. The answer, obviously, is not 'need', but wishing to have them and wishing to interpret current law to allow them to have such weapons. The world is full of folks who want definitions to be interpreted to fit their own desires and interests....that's why lawyers make a lot of money arguing the details.

As Mick says, I don't really expect much to change in those laws very soon........but neither do expect a big decline in sad headlines.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:22 PM

" What is being banned will fire one shot each time you pull the trigger. As Rapaire said, about the same as a "double action" 6-shooter from the Wild West days."

If you really believe that then we need to meet at a rifle range someday so you can show me how well you can shoot a "6-shooter from the Wild West days." Apples and oranges.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: olddude
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:21 PM

Well PDQ, no matter what happens with firearm laws, the only ones it ever affects is those who don't break the law. The criminals don't care. It is pretty evident looking at the street gangs all carrying without a permit. For those of us who went through the incredible complex process of getting a carry permit in NY, the criminals didn't need to do that.
By the way, to even own a handgun in NY, you would not believe the process. I am one of the very few that actually got a conceal carry permit that I know.

my only concern with the AK is that shootout in California a few years back, those two guys converted them to fully auto with armour piercing round and rained havoc on the police. To me can't see why we need them for hunting or otherwise since you can go get 100 round drum clips and lay seige to someone or someplace like what happened. But I guess the bad guys will always get them and the good guys will obey the ban if it comes to that so nothing really changes


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: pdq
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 03:50 PM

The term "assault weapon" is used to describe a gun with characteristics such as "threading intended to accept a silencer", "collapseable shoulder support", "attachments for mounting stand" and "pistol grip", etc. These have nothing to do with the number of rounds the gun can fire or how fast it can fire them. It also has nothing to do with the buyer or what he intends to do with it when he gets home.

Repeat until it set in: automatic weapons were made illegal in 1934 at the request of J. Edgar Hoover because of the proliferation of the Thompson sub-machine giun. Only a few thousand people in the US hold a permit to own and operate an automatic weapon (machine gun) and extensive training is needed. Also a reason for owning it, which is usually work as a professional security person or cop.

An AK-47 or M-16 with automatic capability is not sold legally and conversion parts are just as illegal as the weapon itself.

The term "assault weapon" is used to scare people. What is being banned will fire one shot each time you pull the trigger. As Rapaire said, about the same as a "double action" 6-shooter from the Wild West days.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: olddude
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 03:46 PM

Big Mick
I hear what you are saying and respect it. Like I said I have conceal carry permits and a ton of firearms - grew up in a small PA town and still live in a small NY town. I do think it is much easier to convert an AK then people think, the AR would be harder but the AK, no I don't think so, maybe it is because I know firearms also but I do think it is fairly easy. However PDQ makes a good point. I just don't like the AK as I see no reason for it. That doesn't mean I support a ban, I just do care if it is banned for that reason


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 03:37 PM

You know Dave, on reflection I think that maybe pdq makes a good point. All along I have been asking for the definition. But it seems to me that the very term "assault weapon" is one of those made up words we use when we really don't understand the difference. The fact that there are any number of definitions floating around this thread, some from knowledgeable folks and some from folks that don't know which end the round goes in, shows that folks are talking about generalities and appearances, when in fact they should be talking about capabilities. Weapons used in a military assault would have a full auto capability, as well as a semi auto capability. The point about defining them is to make folks use appropriate terms. A sporting version of the AK has the pistol grip stock, and is a semi automatic. The military version has the full auto option. Despite the contention that they can be converted in minutes, this simply is not the case. It takes a fair amount of knowledge. A person willing to do this is a lawbreaker to begin with. I think it is necessary to the discussion to know what folks are calling an "assault weapon". I suspect that they are referring to anything that has a military look to it.

One more thing. How the hell does a bayonet lug make a weapon an assault weapon? And if it does, when is the last time you heard of a bayonet charge on the streets of the US?

And once again, the gun ban is not starting "already".

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 03:23 PM

pdq said:

PLEASE stop describing a machine gun (automatic weapon) and calling it an assault weapon.

Well, pdq, would you please describe what difference you allege between a (fully) automatic weapon and an assault weapon?

Perhaps such a description would make your arguments clearer.

Or perhaps not.

Dave Oesterreich


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 03:20 PM

hg,

"I also think a bellicose, in your face, progun stance by a Mudcat hall monitor is also a HUGE mistake here on the forum"

Do you also think that a bellicose, in your face, anti-gun stance by a Mudcat hall monitor is also a HUGE mistake here on the forum?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 01:12 PM

kat, that is the second time you have used that shillelagh line. I am simply arguing my points, and I surely don't need chastisement from you. Simply argue your points. There is a difference between being authoritative and being opinionated. I am surely opinionated, as are you. I do not begrudge you, or any Mudcatter their opinions, nor do I consider those that respond passionately to be acting inappropriately. But I do consider those that seem to need to make patronizing, or matronizing, comments to be out of bounds.

So answer the contentions, disagree, argue, make your points. But save the chastisement for others. I have a point of view, and I simply am stating it. If you don't like my style, I hope that all understand that there are those that don't like others styles as well.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 01:04 PM

hg, you seem to think that being a "Mudcat hall monitor" means I cannot have an opinion. Usually, with you, that means I have disagreed with you, which historically you can't handle. I would be happy to dig around for examples if you would like. And I NEVER let my personal likes/dislikes affect my duties. I would guess that in your profession, you probably should be able to say the same? So why don't you stick to arguing the points raised instead of this stuff. But that would be too much to ask, you haven't been able to do it yet. Not an insult, just an observation.

I am well aware of your background, Art, and have great respect for it. And btw, in my opinion, an assault weapon would have a clip capacity over about 15 rounds and have a full auto option. A semi auto, without the full auto option, cannot be considered an assault weapon, again IMO. As to the ban on "assault weapons", it is useful to note that no one has commented on pdq's assertion. The only crimes committed with automatic weaponry in over 70 years has been with those obtained illegally.

As to your comment:

I would rather ignore your rather condescending notion that people use the prospects of an assault weapon ban "to avoid the real problem".


Let me assure you that it is neither condescending, nor without basis. It is based on watching the dumbing down of the political discourse in this country. Americans have sunk to the level of political discourse by cliche' that fits their own prejudices. I have seen it time and again. An example of that fits exactly with the opening post of this thread. The real reason for me bringing this up, originally in another thread, is to say that gun owners need not worry about an Obama administration. He has stated his position on the matter clearly. He believes the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for whatever legal purpose.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 12:52 PM

Well said, Bill and Susan.

Mick, I think you are generalising. Maybe you should check the shillelagh at the door.:-) No one in this thread has called for an outright ban. You won't win anyone over by being strident, authoritative, and/or condescending. We are, none of us, the "enemy" something President Obama is already demonstrating...in order for there to be a consensus and seeming fairness for all, we have to all learn to debate without the loud noise and generalisations we've all been guilty of in the past.

kat


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 27 October 6:20 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.