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

How much longer do I have?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
Author
Rambino View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
I am even less fun in person

Joined: 15 August 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 16593
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rambino Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2008 at 11:58am

Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:

there are numerous other groups that are far more unified in their GOP support - like my county, for instance,
Enjoy Sensenbrenner

Yeah.

I got 20 calls to my house on election day telling me to go vote.  All of them from Republican campaigns.

Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2008 at 12:05pm
Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:

Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:

there are numerous other groups that are far more unified in their GOP support - like my county, for instance,
Enjoy Sensenbrenner


Yeah.


I got 20 calls to my house on election day telling me to go vote.† All of them from Republican campaigns.



that would almost be enough to make me want to switch parties.
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2008 at 2:30pm
Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Originally posted by ammolord ammolord wrote:

Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Question: Would you shoot anyone caught breaking into your house? What if they were leaving?
I would fire upon anyone that I perceived as a threat to the well being of myself or my family.


isent what the law is?? that you can only shoot if you feel the person is a threat to yourself or property?



Why a threat to your property though? Does that justify killing someone?

Tallen: So even if they were leaving after stealing your things?

What exactly do you mean by "perceive as a threat?"
i'm just curious, where did he say a threat to his property?


Tallen didn't so I guess that was a misquote... my bad
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
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: 12 November 2008 at 5:21am
Originally posted by Bruce Banner Bruce Banner wrote:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:


Exactly what is law based upon? Principle? Virtue? Philosophy? Laws are based on a little of each.

BASED ON, yes - same as, no.

Breaking a law gets you thrown in jail.  Breaking a philosophy gets you a heated argument.

Quote As I stated previously, the constitution does not take a scholar to "interpret". We do not interpret the intent of the constitution, it's rather self explanatory.

Alrightythen.  To take the subject matter of this particular thread:

Originally posted by Second Amendment Second Amendment wrote:

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.

I see a right to "keep and bear arms."

I see nothing about guns.  Therefore, you have no rights to guns.

Simple.  Obvious.

Unless, of course, you want to "interpret" the word "arms" to mean "weapons, including guns".

But fine - we'll go with that.

Now I want to wear my suicide bomber belt to your dinner party.  You tell me that you a strict policy against suicide bomber belts in your house.

I declare that you just violated my consitutional rights, by infringing my rights to keep and bear my "arms."

Obvious, right?



You are correct, "arms" is a very broad term. Taken literally (as it should be taken) all arms are protected by the second amendment.

The suicide belt argument does not hold water. Explosives are legally considered to be destructive devices, not arms of any type.

I have a concealed "weapon" permit from my state. The designers of the concealed carry law in my state took the word "arms" more broadly than other states. In my (former) state my permit allowed me to carry a firearm, but it also allowed me to carry a knife (of any length, including "automatic" knives), billy club, sap, asp, etc.

If you want to find out more what the founding fathers thought of citizens possessing weapons, it's easy enough to find their quotes. They were not at all ambiguous in their opinions, which, in most cases were much more pro-gun than anything that the NRA has ever published.

You can argue about what the 2nd amendment says literally or figuratively, but don't try to argue that the founding fathers were not clear in their intentions when they added it to the bill of rights.
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: 12 November 2008 at 5:52am
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:


Then tell me why they need to have access to such information when they are not investigating a criminal action?


Meh, I don't disagree with you.

But if you're really that worried about the government taking away your guns, it's time to stage a Waco.

*EDIT* The more I think about it, the stupider this whole argument gets. 

Frankly, I wouldn't mind if we, like the Swedes, mandated that everyone owns firearms and be trained to use them.  But honestly, there is not ever going to be a second war for independence.  Either the military sides with the government, and your guns are useless, or the military goes against the government, and your guns aren't necessary.  The 2nd Amendment may be part of the Constitution, but it certainly means little, if anything, anymore.


The 2nd amendment has just as much meaning as any other right, which in itself, whether you own a gun or not, means its worth defending.

And you probably mean the Swiss, not the Swedes. Military service is compulsory in Switzerland, and all households are armed. No surprise why Switzerland has been able to maintain it's independence and neutrality despite the ambitions of nearby neighbors like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.

As for the military, you seem to forget that they are citizens (citizen soldiers, to be exact). Their allegiance is to the constitution (I remember taking the oath myself) not to the President or to their officers. Orders which are not legal (constitutional) cannot be legally obeyed.

Soldiers are obligated to defend the constitution as well as the country, from enemies foreign and domestic. If the government one day decides to dissolve the constitution and attempt to replace it, then that government no longer holds any authority to command the military, and it becomes the military's (soldier's) duty to evict that government.

The government of the USA is not held in higher esteem than the citizens. By nature, it cannot reserve privileges for itself that the citizens cannot enjoy.

We live in a "free" society. Free to speak, to exercise religion, and to bear arms if we choose. But these freedoms come with responsibilities. The constitution assumes that people will behave responsibly, and exercise their rights responsibly. Those that do not are punished. The constitution by nature cannot take away rights from the many (a punishment itself) due to the actions of the few. If that were the case, it could be argued that humankind does not deserve any rights whatsoever.
 
For I will wander to and fro,
I'll go where I no one do know,
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2008 at 10:00am

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

You are correct, "arms" is a very broad term. Taken literally (as it should be taken) all arms are protected by the second amendment.

Uh huh.  And is there any other way than literally to take the Consitution?

This is what you said earlier:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

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 

Back to my example:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

The suicide belt argument does not hold water. Explosives are legally considered to be destructive devices, not arms of any type.

Yeah.  I assume by "legally" you mean "interpreted by judges to mean," which again goes against your earlier broad statement.

(Of course, you are incorrect legally also, as most explosives are "destructive devices," which are Class 3 weapons under the Federal Firearms Act, but that's another discussion.)

But fine - I'll go with your unfounded and incorrect claim that explosives are somehow obviously excluded from the Second Amendment.

Example #2:  I like to send my 10-year-old son to school with a TEC-9.  The gun doesn't have a safety, and the boy has an anger problem and a neurological condition that makes his fingers twitchy.  And he is just a tad retarded.

Somebody tries to tell me I can't do that.  I sue on my son's behalf for violation of his consitutional rights.  I win automatically, right?  Since the constitution is all clear and obvious, right?

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

If you want to find out more what the founding fathers thought of citizens possessing weapons, it's easy enough to find their quotes.  They were not at all ambiguous in their opinions, which, in most cases were much more pro-gun than anything that the NRA has ever published.

You can argue about what the 2nd amendment says literally or figuratively, but don't try to argue that the founding fathers were not clear in their intentions when they added it to the bill of rights.

There is a word for this process of determining the intent of the founding fathers by using their other writings.  That word is "interpretation."

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

And you probably mean the Swiss, not the Swedes. Military service is compulsory in Switzerland, and all households are armed. No surprise why Switzerland has been able to maintain it's independence and neutrality despite the ambitions of nearby neighbors like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.

You really lay continued Swiss neutrality at the feet of the household weaponry?  Really?  Not geographic irrelevance, not economic strength, not political/diplomatic skill, not easily defensible terrain, not a non-interventionist foreign policy?  All the way to the origins of Swiss neutrality in 1674, it was their firearms policy that made it work?  Really?

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

As for the military, you seem to forget that they are citizens (citizen soldiers, to be exact). Their allegiance is to the constitution (I remember taking the oath myself) not to the President or to their officers. Orders which are not legal (constitutional) cannot be legally obeyed.

I encourage every soldier/sailor/airman/marine reading this to decline to obey next time they get an order they think is unconsitutional.  I hear that sergeants (and their counterparts) really like that.  Sergeants love engaging in constitutional debates with their troops in the middle of training exercises and/or combat.

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10299
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gatyr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2008 at 10:16am

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

The suicide belt argument does not hold water. Explosives are legally considered to be destructive devices, not arms of any type. 

I, being the simple minded and non-scholarly individual that I am, would consider maintaining the ability to adequately confront a tyranical government (as would be necessary for the security of the state), and would consider explosives a type of arms.

And you might be correct in saying that it doesn't take a scholar to know the law if it wasn't for that pesky common-law thing. Black letter law may be relatively straight forward, but past rulings by judges, the judements of appellate courts, and the interpretation of the US Constitution by the SCOTUS make true knowledge and application of the law so difficult.

Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2008 at 10:41am
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:

And you might be correct in saying that it doesn't take a scholar to know the law if it wasn't for that pesky common-law thing. Black letter law may be relatively straight forward, but past rulings by judges, the judements of appellate courts, and the interpretation of the US Constitution by the SCOTUS make true knowledge and application of the law so difficult.

You are approaching it from the wrong direction.

Courts do not sit around ruling on things whenever they feel like it.  They only make ruling when there are disagreements.  The reason we have common-law is because we have complex disagreements, not the other way around.

The very existence of common-law is conclusive evidence of the non-oviousness of the black letter laws.  That's how you can tell a well-drafted statute:  There is very little common-law interpreting it.

 

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2008 at 11:50am
Originally posted by Bruce Banner Bruce Banner wrote:

Example #2:  I like to send my 10-year-old son to school with a TEC-9.  The gun doesn't have a safety, and the boy has an anger problem and a neurological condition that makes his fingers twitchy.  And he is just a tad retarded.

Somebody tries to tell me I can't do that.  I sue on my son's behalf for violation of his consitutional rights.  I win automatically, right?  Since the constitution is all clear and obvious, right?



So, the argument is, that because a small percentage of people may abuse their rights by doing something extremely stupid; everyone should have their rights taken away?
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: 12 November 2008 at 11:55am
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:


Originally posted by Bruce Banner Bruce Banner wrote:

Example #2: I like to send my 10-year-old son to school with a TEC-9. The gun doesn't have a safety, and the boy has an anger problem and a neurological condition that makes his fingers twitchy. And he is just a tad retarded.


Somebody tries to tell me I can't do that. I sue on my son's behalf for violation of his consitutional rights. I win automatically, right? Since the constitution is all clear and obvious, right?

So, the argument is, that because a small percentage of people may abuse their rights by doing something extremely stupid; everyone should have their rights taken away?


I don't think that was his point at all.

TRAVELER said that you don't need to interpret the constitution at all, that you can just take it literal word for word.

BB gave an example of how the literal, basic readings of the constitution are worthless if we don't bother understanding what they mean, ala that analogy.
"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
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2008 at 12:15pm

What Whale said.  I am not making a gun policy point, but a constitutional interpretation point.

I would tend to disapprove of sending twitchy-fingered retards to school with guns, however.

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
FlimFlam View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I hate to do this in public

Joined: 09 December 2002
Location: Senegal
Status: Offline
Points: 3930
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FlimFlam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2008 at 2:25pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

I am saying people should not be
going home free because some cop didn't have a warrant
to search, but found something illegal.


Your views... scare me...

Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2008 at 4:23pm
Originally posted by Bruce Banner Bruce Banner wrote:

I would tend to disapprove of sending twitchy-fingered retards to school with guns, however.



Hey . . . twitchy-fingered retards have rights too!














Sorry . . . couldn't resist.
Back to Top
WUNgUN View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
100% Bonafied Jar Head

Joined: 15 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3812
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WUNgUN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2008 at 6:56pm
Quick story for potential gun buyers. A guy I know has been shopping "AK's" for a while, and decided due to the recent election it was time to buy before it was too late. So he goes to a local shop and the dealer has a Yugo AK WASR and tells the guy that is what he wants (for better or worse) and he has seen them for $400-600 online. The dealer tells him that his distributor has moved 5000 units this month and he can't keep them in stock. So my friend says, "I'll take it, but what can you do?" The dealer says "nothing" because he is literally moving them at retail. This is generally unheard of in most gun shops, there is always wiggle room. So my friend bought one in the $500 range. I email this story to friends and family members who usually buy/ collect firearms. My uncle emails me right back and says ammo went up $30 a case in a week. These are not good signs...Over the summer I sold some pre-ban stuff and I am already regretting it.

Edited by WUNgUN - 12 November 2008 at 6:57pm
[IMG]http://hometown.aol.com/hlwrangler/myhomepage/revised5_copy.jpg">
""...the Marines we have there now could crush the city and be done with business in four days."--LtGen Conway on Fallujah
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2008 at 10:14pm
The AWB was lame.  Hopefully there are enough Great Plains Democrats in Congress to stop it from coming back.
Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
JohnnyHopper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I.O.U. a punch

Joined: 15 June 2002
Location: North Chuck SC
Status: Offline
Points: 4664
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JohnnyHopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2008 at 10:21pm
Made another gun buy today. I got a brand new stainless 10/22 with the deluxe wooden stock, sling and padded case- $150 cash :)

Not the AR I wanted, but with 50rnd mags who cares.




Edited by JohnnyHopper - 12 November 2008 at 10:41pm
My shoes of peace have steel toes.
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: 12 November 2008 at 11:15pm
Originally posted by FlimFlam FlimFlam wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

I am saying people should not be
going home free because some cop didn't have a warrant
to search, but found something illegal.


Your views... scare me...


I'm not going to get into this argument again, but just want to ask.

Why do my views scare you?

Was the person doing something illegal or not?
Que pasa?


Back to Top
Shub View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I donít have one either. Is that good???

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shub Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 November 2008 at 12:30am
The problem is that yes, let's assume that someone is doing something illegal. Regardless of what the bad guys do, cops still have laws that THEY have to follow. These laws are built to protect us from cops overreaching their boundaries.
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 November 2008 at 12:51am

But there are alternatives.

The exclusionary rule is relatively new - it wasn't fully adopted in the US until 1961.  We just think of it as automatic from watching a lifetime of cop shows.

There are plenty of other options.  A simple disciplinary action against the offending police officers, for instance.

jmac's point has been raised many times for many years by many legal scholars.  While most people tend to come down in favor of the exclusionary rule, it is by no means fully settled.

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
Shub View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I donít have one either. Is that good???

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shub Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 November 2008 at 1:57am
For the record, I understand what jmac is saying, and I agree that it sucks that criminals get away with crimes due to technicalities.

However, the root of this discussion began with the suggestion that someone who has been arrested should be stripped of rights in the same way as a convicted felon, particularly gun ownership in this discussion, but presumably including voting rights, etc.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.