Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

How much longer do I have?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:39am
Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by Enmity Enmity wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by Evil Elvis Evil Elvis wrote:

How do you abuse the Right to bear arms? By buying 200 guns? how does that harm anyone?

 


By shooting people in the face?




Not everyone who owns guns is going to shoot people, it's the people who illegally own guns that are going to shoot people and commit crimes.


Thanks Captain Obvious.

That doesn't mean a criminal who has never been convicted of a crime, but arrested, couldn't buy a gun.(I am not sure about this).
I think being arrested for most crimes(I am not writing a bill so I am not getting specific) should disqualify you from gun use.

I think they should check mental health records to qualify you for gun use.

People that aren't criminals but own guns can still commit a crime.

I also know that none of this foolproof, criminals will still get illegal guns, people may go crazy that never showed any signs of doing so.





If you are ever convicted of a felony, charged with domestic violence, or are declared mentally incompetent, then you are prohibited from owning a gun.

In some states, it is illegal to share medical information, including information about mental competency. More often than not, if you are ever declared mentally incompetent, no law enforcement agency will be able to find out unless they petition the state where the records are held.



Thank you for proving my points. Read from my post what I put in red.

Criminals get out of convictions on some petty nonsense.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:46am
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:


Thank you for proving my points. Read from my post what I put in red.


He's done nothing of the sort.

Quote
Criminals get out of convictions on some petty nonsense.


Do tell.

Clearly holding the mentally incompetent accountable is the answer here.

 
Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:


If you are ever convicted of a felony, charged with domestic violence, or are declared mentally incompetent, then you are prohibited from owning a gun.

In some states, it is illegal to share medical information, including information about mental competency. More often than not, if you are ever declared mentally incompetent, no law enforcement agency will be able to find out unless they petition the state where the records are held.



Medical privacy is a huge concern in this country.  Trust me, my mom writes privacy legislation for an insurance company, and it is not petty stuff.

Until companies can legally disclose information to state/federal authorities, which would require either rewriting or removal of legislation (most of which does protect health care providers and users), this isn't going to change.  But at the same time, it is far from the most pressing issue.


Edited by ParielIsBack - 07 November 2008 at 11:47am
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
TRAVELER View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member

Vulcan Logic Academy Graduate

Joined: 30 January 2004
Location: Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 1498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRAVELER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:48am
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:



To quote: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

This is not ambiguous language. It is simple and straightforward. This is no less a right than any other you have. If you can regulate or abolish this right, then you can lose any of the others just as easily.


Ooops. Too late.  There is a clear modern precedent for regulation.  This loophole is just that, a loophole in the modern precedent.  Stop quoting the Constitution in a way that is clearly not the modern interpretation.

Quote
"The pen is mightier than the sword" they say, but a pen needs a sword to defend itself.


I'm not sure I buy that.  But given the modern state of America, I will acquiesce to it.

Quote
As you mentioned before, guns will fall into the wrong hands regardless of the law. Guns are illegal in Mexico, but thousands have been shot this year, have they not? I live in Japan, which has some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, but guns can still be found here.


So clearly regulation to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands (Virginia Tech, anyone?  Someone forgot to check a database and people got killed.  OK, that may not be the whole story, but the point stands.), and to allow the police to prosecute the owners/users when guns are used in crimes is stupid?  Please, do tell.

Quote
America is not a democracy or a collective. It is a republic where individual rights are held the most precious. It means that individuals are responsible for their own actions, good or bad. But it also means that the rights of individuals will not be infringed upon because of the actions of a few.


Bull-poopy.  There's regulation in business, there's regulation in education; this is just about regulation.  Learn to be regulated like everyone else.  Your rights as an individual are earned, whether you like it or not.  Whether you have a drivers license, a firearms license, a high school or college diploma, you have to earn that right, even if only by age.  "Born free and equal" my butt.

Note: not all curses are made equal.


The constitution is rather simple, and does not require "interpretation". It's written in simple English that anyone with a high school education can read without the help of a lawyer. It's the laws which are perpetually passed by the legislature in purposefully vague language which require interpretation.

Obtaining a drivers license is not, and never has been a right. It is defined as a privilege, and as such, is subject to regulation and fees.

The constitution contains the bill of rights, which, as rights, are not subject to regulation. But the constitution does give the states (and federal government) the ability to regulate other matters, such as commerce, trade, taxes, etc. It's all available online if you want to look at it.

Everyone is born equal. However, that moment is very brief. Before long you become a product of your environment, upbringing, and ambition. In time some become more equal than others, to quote Orwell.
For I will wander to and fro,
I'll go where I no one do know,
Back to Top
TRAVELER View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member

Vulcan Logic Academy Graduate

Joined: 30 January 2004
Location: Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 1498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRAVELER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:52am
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Traveler, people like you tend to leave out the rest of that amendment.

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.


But you seem to forget that just this year the Supreme Court decided that the second amendment did in fact state that the "people have a right to keep and bear arms". I can post the decision and the arguments for you if you wish.

On second thought, I'll post it now.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf



Edited by TRAVELER - 07 November 2008 at 11:54am
For I will wander to and fro,
I'll go where I no one do know,
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:52am
I own firearms, including handguns, and I voted for Barack Obama.

For some reason I am not strikingly afraid and paranoid that anything is really going to change about my gun ownership status.

Then again, I am not insane either.

Go figure.
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:53am
Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:


The constitution is rather simple, and does not require "interpretation".


The Founding Fathers would be disappointed to read this from you.
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:55am
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:


Thank you for proving my points. Read from my post what I put in red.


He's done nothing of the sort.

....

Quote
Criminals get out of convictions on some petty nonsense.


Do tell.

My mother, and many like her. They do crimes, but because the cops did something "illegal" they get out of it without a conviction.

My mother sells drugs, some people I have told this to, and she was in a hotel room. Someone said there is someone who may be "harming himself" in the room. The cops go in and find drugs, but because they didn't have a warrant to search for drugs and made no attempt to find the possibly suicidal person she got off.

Now my point is, what if it had been a gun? She would have been arrested for having a gun, but not got convicted due to petty nonsense.

Clearly holding the mentally incompetent accountable is the answer here.

Accountable isn't the right word. A simple yay or nay to gun store owners on whether someone's medical history allows them to own a gun would suffice.

 
Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:


If you are ever convicted of a felony, charged with domestic violence, or are declared mentally incompetent, then you are prohibited from owning a gun.

In some states, it is illegal to share medical information, including information about mental competency. More often than not, if you are ever declared mentally incompetent, no law enforcement agency will be able to find out unless they petition the state where the records are held.



Medical privacy is a huge concern in this country.  Trust me, my mom writes privacy legislation for an insurance company, and it is not petty stuff.

Until companies can legally disclose information to state/federal authorities, which would require either rewriting or removal of legislation (most of which does protect health care providers and users), this isn't going to change.  But at the same time, it is far from the most pressing issue.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
TRAVELER View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member

Vulcan Logic Academy Graduate

Joined: 30 January 2004
Location: Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 1498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRAVELER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:56am
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:


The constitution is rather simple, and does not require "interpretation".


The Founding Fathers would be disappointed to read this from you.


I can think of many more reasons they might be disappointed.
For I will wander to and fro,
I'll go where I no one do know,
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:56am
Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Traveler, people like you tend to leave out the rest of that amendment.

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.


But you seem to forget that just this year the Supreme Court decided that the second amendment did in fact state that the "people have a right to keep and bear arms". I can post the decision and the arguments for you if you wish.

On second thought, I'll post it now.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf



I am well aware of what the supreme court decided. It doesn't change what the amendment actually states, and the whole beginning most Pro-gun people leave out.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:57am
I figure I will triple post and weigh in on my stance on guns.

We need a better understanding and culture of gun control in America. I am a believer that this laissez-faire attitude when it comes to controlling firearms is one, but not the only one mind you, of the contributing factors of our high crime and murder rate.

Guns are far too easy to produce and obtain, and sadly people don't take care of their firearms like they should. A large majority of guns that find themselves in the hands of criminals were ones purchased for a home on the thought of some sort of "home protection," and then stolen from the home.

People need to be careful.
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:01pm
Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:


Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:


The constitution is rather simple, and does not require "interpretation".


The Founding Fathers would be disappointed to read this from you.
I can think of many more reasons they might be disappointed.


Ok, but that is not the point.

You just said that the document that they took arms up for, and fought and died for the ability to write and enforce, wasn't really worth working to interpret because it is good enough at face value.

Some of the best and brightest our country ever had struggled to make that constitution. The least we can do is work to understand the context and intent of their ink on paper.


"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
TRAVELER View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member

Vulcan Logic Academy Graduate

Joined: 30 January 2004
Location: Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 1498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRAVELER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:09pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Traveler, people like you tend to leave out the rest of that amendment.

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.


But you seem to forget that just this year the Supreme Court decided that the second amendment did in fact state that the "people have a right to keep and bear arms". I can post the decision and the arguments for you if you wish.

On second thought, I'll post it now.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf



I am well aware of what the supreme court decided. It doesn't change what the amendment actually states, and the whole beginning most Pro-gun people leave out.


Because it is the fundamental part. How many laws have you researched? How many have similar headings? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

Since there has been some question about the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment, it was finally "interpreted" by the Supreme Court to say what it always said, that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

Where does it say that the "well regulated militia" are those who have the right to bear arms? Can you point that part out to me? I don't see it written anywhere...
For I will wander to and fro,
I'll go where I no one do know,
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:10pm
Wow, the ignorance in this thread has me flabbergasted....

1) Why should the government have any right to force you to register your firearms? Do they force you to register your knives? How about baseball bats, hammers, and other blunt force trauma inducing objects? No, they do not. It is no easier to kill the average unarmed person with any of these than it is with a firearm.

2) Why should the seller be held responsible for the buyer's actions? Do we hold Auto companies or car dealerships responsible for the actions of their customers? More people are killed in car accidents every year than in incidents involving firearms, but you don't see a 3 day waiting period to buy an automobile. You don't even have to have a driver's license to buy a car. As a private seller you don't have to inform the state that you have sold a car or to whom other than to turn in your plates and sign the back of the title. The impetus to obtain and use the car legally and to abide by all laws is on the purchaser.

3) The NICS works. After the VT shootings, people tried to say that the NICS didn't work as the shooter at VA Tech purchased his firearms from dealers who used the NICS. However, it was the fault of the state and federal governments by not registering his name and SSN with the NICS when he had been appointed by the court to attend mental health counseling. Had the governments which enacted the laws actually followed their own laws, the shootings could have been prevented.

4) The so-called "Loophole" at gun shows is simply an expansion of the provisions in place for private sellers. If you are a license holder, you MUST keep records of who you buy and sell from. However, individuals do not need to do so as long as they are not buying and selling as a significant form of business. In short, you may not purchase firearms with the sole intent of selling them without a dealer's license. C&R holders are allowed to do so, but are not allowed to do it in a volume that would constitute a business-only transaction of said firearms.

5) No enactment of firearms restrictions since the implementation of the 1934 NFA have ever been shown through any scientifically derived data to have any effect on violent crime.

6) The vast majority of illegally obtained (read: purchased by persons who are not legally allowed to obtain firearms) are sold to them through illicit vendors. i.e. the trunk of a '64 caddy on the corner of Ghetto Lane and Gangland Drive. No amount of hoops to jump through will ever solve this. Rather the strict adherence to the principals set forth in the NFA of 1934 and increased punishment for violators of said act.
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
TRAVELER View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member

Vulcan Logic Academy Graduate

Joined: 30 January 2004
Location: Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 1498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRAVELER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:11pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:


Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:


The constitution is rather simple, and does not require "interpretation".


The Founding Fathers would be disappointed to read this from you.
I can think of many more reasons they might be disappointed.


Ok, but that is not the point.

You just said that the document that they took arms up for, and fought and died for the ability to write and enforce, wasn't really worth working to interpret because it is good enough at face value.

Some of the best and brightest our country ever had struggled to make that constitution. The least we can do is work to understand the context and intent of their ink on paper.




Read it yourself. I can send you a link if you like. If there are any parts you are having difficulty with, I'd be happy to help.

To elaborate. The founding fathers were great men, but they thought of themselves as ordinary. The language which they used was also ordinary (for the times). The constitution was a document that could be read by laymen of the time, and it should be understandable to any reasonably educated person now.

It's not that long, and it's not that complicated. It's written with black ink on white paper, and it's principles are just as clearly contrasted. The truth does not need interpretation, it can be seen for what it is.

As I stated before, it is later laws which are those which require interpretation. Laws which have, through fine print and vague language, turned black and white into various shades of gray. Laws which claim to be within the boundaries set by the constitution, but worded so vaguely or densely that laymen (and many lawyers) cannot  determine their constitutionality easily, if at all.

To further elaborate. Decisions are often made by other courts on these later laws, sometimes affirming them, sometimes overthrowing them. But the difficulty arrives when people (judges and lawyers) begin interpreting these laws to satisfy their personal views, selecting laws which suit their particular shade of gray, as a way of getting around the strict guidelines set in the constitution.

This has been done to the second amendment many times, but the argument about the wording of the amendment itself has only been seen as confusing to laymen, and not to anyone with a basic understanding of law. Rather than confront the wording of the amendment itself, these vague and copious laws have been written as a way of circumventing it. Later gun control laws used previously unchallenged laws as a form of precedent, and with the Supreme Court always reluctant to hear any cases regarding the second amendment, people began to take it's meaning as a right less seriously. 

For  better or worse (like all other things in life), the right to keep and bear arms is just that, a right.


Edited by TRAVELER - 07 November 2008 at 12:50pm
For I will wander to and fro,
I'll go where I no one do know,
Back to Top
DeTrevni View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
b-YOU-ick. Was that so hard?

Joined: 19 September 2005
Location: Houston, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 11763
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeTrevni Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:15pm

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:


Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:


The constitution is rather simple, and does not require "interpretation".


The Founding Fathers would be disappointed to read this from you.
I can think of many more reasons they might be disappointed.


Ok, but that is not the point.

You just said that the document that they took arms up for, and fought and died for the ability to write and enforce, wasn't really worth working to interpret because it is good enough at face value.

Some of the best and brightest our country ever had struggled to make that constitution. The least we can do is work to understand the context and intent of their ink on paper.




Read it yourself. I can send you a link if you like. If there are any parts you are having difficulty with, I'd be happy to help.


THIS will be interesting.



Edited by DeTrevni - 07 November 2008 at 12:16pm
Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"

Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:21pm
Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Traveler, people like you tend to leave out the rest of that amendment.

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.


But you seem to forget that just this year the Supreme Court decided that the second amendment did in fact state that the "people have a right to keep and bear arms". I can post the decision and the arguments for you if you wish.

On second thought, I'll post it now.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf



I am well aware of what the supreme court decided. It doesn't change what the amendment actually states, and the whole beginning most Pro-gun people leave out.


Because it is the fundamental part. How many laws have you researched? How many have similar headings? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

Since there has been some question about the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment, it was finally "interpreted" by the Supreme Court to say what it always said, that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

Where does it say that the "well regulated militia" are those who have the right to bear arms? Can you point that part out to me? I don't see it written anywhere...


Yes it was interpreted, and I can't argue that. I am just saying why else would that line be in the amendment?

Even before it was interpreted by the supreme court people left out the militia line.

Also, Tallen guns should be more heavily regulated because they are TOOLS MADE FOR DEATH. A knife while originally made as a weapon has many other uses these days(as you should know). A bat while evolved from a club is now in main use of a very popular sport, not for killing things.

Automobiles were NEVER made as weapons to kill people with. Guns were, and still are mainly made to kill other people with. They could be used to shoot paper, they could be used to shoot clay, or they could be used to KILL animals that really have no need to be killed(that is another argument).

I am not saying the gun dealer should be held responsible for the buyer's actions. I am saying that it should be ALOT harder for people to purchase guns.


Noone said anything about the statement I made about people that have merely been arrested should be barred from having guns.

I don't see why regulation is such a bad thing.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
TRAVELER View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member

Vulcan Logic Academy Graduate

Joined: 30 January 2004
Location: Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 1498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRAVELER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:29pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Traveler, people like you tend to leave out the rest of that amendment.

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.


But you seem to forget that just this year the Supreme Court decided that the second amendment did in fact state that the "people have a right to keep and bear arms". I can post the decision and the arguments for you if you wish.

On second thought, I'll post it now.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf



I am well aware of what the supreme court decided. It doesn't change what the amendment actually states, and the whole beginning most Pro-gun people leave out.


Because it is the fundamental part. How many laws have you researched? How many have similar headings? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

Since there has been some question about the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment, it was finally "interpreted" by the Supreme Court to say what it always said, that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

Where does it say that the "well regulated militia" are those who have the right to bear arms? Can you point that part out to me? I don't see it written anywhere...


Yes it was interpreted, and I can't argue that. I am just saying why else would that line be in the amendment?

Even before it was interpreted by the supreme court people left out the militia line.

Also, Tallen guns should be more heavily regulated because they are TOOLS MADE FOR DEATH. A knife while originally made as a weapon has many other uses these days(as you should know). A bat while evolved from a club is now in main use of a very popular sport, not for killing things.

Automobiles were NEVER made as weapons to kill people with. Guns were, and still are mainly made to kill other people with. They could be used to shoot paper, they could be used to shoot clay, or they could be used to KILL animals that really have no need to be killed(that is another argument).

I am not saying the gun dealer should be held responsible for the buyer's actions. I am saying that it should be ALOT harder for people to purchase guns.


Noone said anything about the statement I made about people that have merely been arrested should be barred from having guns.

I don't see why regulation is such a bad thing.


Yes, they are weapons made for death. There is no argument there. But weapons which cause death also prevent it. The main principle surrounding maintaining an Army isn't to cause war, but to prevent it.

In the majority of cases of firearms used in self defense, the firearm is never fired. The sight of a gun being pointed at you is usually enough to cause you to have second thoughts. The threat is more often a deterrent than the act.

The Supreme Court went on to say that the right to self defense was also fundamental.

In 1992 I lived in Southern California. Do you remember the riots? For nearly 2 days 911 did not work. If you needed help, the police would not come. About 1/3 of the buildings in my neighborhood were looted and burned.

I've owned a gun ever since.
For I will wander to and fro,
I'll go where I no one do know,
Back to Top
ammolord View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 July 2007
Location: Minot, ND
Status: Offline
Points: 1832
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ammolord Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:30pm
wow, dident take long for this thread to go in the crapper.
PSN Tag: AmmoLord
XBL: xXAmmoLordXx


~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:44pm
Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:



Yes, they are weapons made for death. There is no argument there. But weapons which cause death also prevent it. The main principle surrounding maintaining an Army isn't to cause war, but to prevent it.

That's what the police are for?

In the majority of cases of firearms used in self defense, the firearm is never fired. The sight of a gun being pointed at you is usually enough to cause you to have second thoughts. The threat is more often a deterrent than the act.

What about the man in Texas who killed two burglars?

The Supreme Court went on to say that the right to self defense was also fundamental.

In 1992 I lived in Southern California. Do you remember the riots? For nearly 2 days 911 did not work. If you needed help, the police would not come. About 1/3 of the buildings in my neighborhood were looted and burned.

How many full out riots have there been like that since? Maybe if cops didn't beat a mean on video and then get off.

I've owned a gun ever since.


I believe you said you're in Japan.

Country Licensing of gun owners? Registration of firearms? Other Households with firearms (%) Gun Homicide (per 100,000) Gun Suicide (per 100,000) Total Intentional Gun Death Rate per 100,000
Japan




USA
Yes




Some States
Yes




Handguns some states
Prohibits handguns with few exceptions

Some Weapons some states
0.6





41
0.03





6.24
0.04





7.23
0.07





13.47


Source:  http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html




Who has stricter laws regarding guns? I believe you said Japan?




EDIT: HIGHLIGHT THE TABLE TO READ IT


Edited by jmac3 - 07 November 2008 at 12:45pm
Que pasa?


Back to Top
TRAVELER View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member

Vulcan Logic Academy Graduate

Joined: 30 January 2004
Location: Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 1498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRAVELER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:58pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:



Yes, they are weapons made for death. There is no argument there. But weapons which cause death also prevent it. The main principle surrounding maintaining an Army isn't to cause war, but to prevent it.

That's what the police are for?

In the majority of cases of firearms used in self defense, the firearm is never fired. The sight of a gun being pointed at you is usually enough to cause you to have second thoughts. The threat is more often a deterrent than the act.

What about the man in Texas who killed two burglars?

The Supreme Court went on to say that the right to self defense was also fundamental.

In 1992 I lived in Southern California. Do you remember the riots? For nearly 2 days 911 did not work. If you needed help, the police would not come. About 1/3 of the buildings in my neighborhood were looted and burned.

How many full out riots have there been like that since? Maybe if cops didn't beat a mean on video and then get off.

I've owned a gun ever since.


I believe you said you're in Japan.

Country Licensing of gun owners? Registration of firearms? Other Households with firearms (%) Gun Homicide (per 100,000) Gun Suicide (per 100,000) Total Intentional Gun Death Rate per 100,000
Japan




USA
Yes




Some States
Yes




Handguns some states
Prohibits handguns with few exceptions

Some Weapons some states
0.6





41
0.03





6.24
0.04





7.23
0.07





13.47


Source:  http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html




Who has stricter laws regarding guns? I believe you said Japan?




EDIT: HIGHLIGHT THE TABLE TO READ IT


Yes, I live in Japan. I also have a home in Florida, and another in Texas. It is almost 3 am here as I write.

It is true that there are few firearms or firearms related deaths in Japan, but then there is very little other crime either. You can't forget that Japan is a very monocultural society (less than 1% of the population here is made up of foreigners).

The suicide rate is pretty interesting. You would probably be interested to know that the per capita suicide rate here is far higher than it is in America, but not having guns has not had any impact. People tend to jump in front of trains, or off of bridges and buildings. There's also a recipe for poison gas on the internet which has become very popular.

Why don't you post the firearms related deaths in Mexico vs the US for this year? Firearms are more legal in Japan than they are in Mexico, believe it or not. I think the city of Juarez alone has seen a few thousand shootings this year (2008) with more than 1000 dead.
For I will wander to and fro,
I'll go where I no one do know,
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.