JohnRich 4 #76 April 26, 2011 QuoteWell, they already DO make a number of decisions about hand held guns (which is what I was responding to), the limit doesn't seem to be anywhere near what most people on the pro-gun side fear. Nobody that I know has ever suggested limiting weapons to (as in JR's response to me) .22 cal weapons, but to Beachbum's point, they already limit machine guns and automatic weapons. Yes, yes, I see some people have a problem with that, but the courts have upheld the government IS within its rights to do so and it doesn't violate the 2nd. The Heller decision in D.C. specifically determined that handgun bans were illegal under the 2nd Amendment. Chicago will be next to fall under that ruling. "Machine guns" and "automatic weapons" are the same thing. And ownership isn't really limited, you just have to pay a tax, and register the firearm. That's the only thing different from other firearms. So this puts us back to "where to draw the line". Definition of INFRINGE 1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another 2: obsolete : defeat, frustrate Since handgun bans have already been determined to be an infringement, you would have a tough time trying to ban the usual hit-list items of the gun-control folks, like so-called "assault weapons" and .50 caliber firearms. The list of types of guns that the gun-o-phobes would ban is pretty much endless. As soon as they succeed with one type, they start on more types: Assault weapons. Calibers too powerful. Stocks that fold. Pistol grips. Bayonet lugs. Magazines hold too many rounds. Removable magazines. Too inexpensive. Not reliable enough. Barrels too short. Ammo penetrates police vests. Antique military rifles. WWII military surplus rifles. Fired bullet not available for a ballistic database. Heck, some places even ban guns because they're not an approved color. You name it, they want it gone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #77 April 26, 2011 QuoteNo, it doesn't state that specifically, but few of our laws are as specific as they could be, and in most cases, I think they are intentionally written that way. I'm certainly no legal scholar, but I said what I did because, taken in light of the political climate at the time, I believe the 2nd had a lot to do with the fact that the colonies felt the need to rebel against the government that was controlling them at the time. Well, your reasoning may have (may) some merit to it, except you seem to be confused as to when the 2nd Amendment was written. By that time, the Revolutionary War had been over by about six years and the people that drafted the document were not colonies, but the United States of America and by anybody's standard very little control was coming from them at that time.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #78 April 26, 2011 Quoteyou seem to be confused as to when the 2nd Amendment was written. By that time, the Revolutionary War had been over by about six years and the people that drafted the document were not colonies, but the United States of America and by anybody's standard very little control was coming from them at that time. The experience under British rule is what fomented the sentiment for the 2nd Amendment, which came shortly thereafter. The debate in the Federalist Papers and other documents makes this clear. The founding fathers wanted the citizenry to have the power to overthrow the government, should it be necessary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #79 April 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteyou seem to be confused as to when the 2nd Amendment was written. By that time, the Revolutionary War had been over by about six years and the people that drafted the document were not colonies, but the United States of America and by anybody's standard very little control was coming from them at that time. The experience under British rule is what fomented the sentiment for the 2nd Amendment, which came shortly thereafter. The debate in the Federalist Papers and other documents makes this clear. The founding fathers wanted the citizenry to have the power to overthrow the government, should it be necessary. Be that as it may, that doesn't change the fact he was confused over the timeline.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #80 April 26, 2011 Quote Be that as it may, that doesn't change the fact he was confused over the timeline. so you think sometime between 1775 and 1787 they forgot about the British and the experience as subjects of the King? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #81 April 26, 2011 QuoteQuote Be that as it may, that doesn't change the fact he was confused over the timeline. so you think sometime between 1775 and 1787 they forgot about the British and the experience as subjects of the King? That's not what I said, but if it gets you through the night, have fun. I was simply clarifying the timeline and facts.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #82 April 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Be that as it may, that doesn't change the fact he was confused over the timeline. so you think sometime between 1775 and 1787 they forgot about the British and the experience as subjects of the King? That's not what I said, but if it gets you through the night, have fun. I was simply clarifying the timeline and facts. No, you are diverting the convesation away from where you are shown to be wrong"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #83 April 26, 2011 Quote Tanks really don't apply here, nor would a howitzer or MLRS. I want my own M109 scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #85 April 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteyou seem to be confused as to when the 2nd Amendment was written. By that time, the Revolutionary War had been over by about six years and the people that drafted the document were not colonies, but the United States of America and by anybody's standard very little control was coming from them at that time. The experience under British rule is what fomented the sentiment for the 2nd Amendment, which came shortly thereafter. The debate in the Federalist Papers and other documents makes this clear. The founding fathers wanted the citizenry to have the power to overthrow the government, should it be necessary. Be that as it may, that doesn't change the fact he was confused over the timeline. I think you're just reading his statement incorrectly: "I believe the 2nd had a lot to do with the fact that the colonies felt the need to rebel against the government that was controlling them at the time."He's not necessarily saying that the 2nd Amendment was written while under British rule, he's saying that British rule is what made them want to institutionalize the right to keep and bear arms, later, when drawing up their constitution as a free nation. And "at the time" does not necessarily mean a particular day or week, but could be the decade or era, retrospectively speaking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #86 April 26, 2011 QuoteNo, you (quade) are diverting the convesation away from where you are shown to be wrong Well he has to, so he doesn't have to answer my analogy in message #67 about 1st Amendment infringements. Maybe he's hoping that no one will notice... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beachbum 0 #87 April 26, 2011 So, by your logic, since the event was over and done with, it was also removed from the memories of people? I don't buy it. I had no confusion about the timeline, I just assume that people were able to remember. I think John put it quite well in his followup post.As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #88 April 26, 2011 On a side note I gleaned this little gem from a yahoo article on Canadian politics. "Securicor can defend a bag of money with a gun in public, but you can't defend your daughter with one." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #89 April 26, 2011 Quote On a side note I gleaned this little gem from a yahoo article on Canadian politics. "Securicor can defend a bag of money with a gun in public, but you can't defend your daughter with one." Wow just frigin wow"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #90 April 26, 2011 QuoteOn a side note I gleaned this little gem from a yahoo article on Canadian politics. "Securicor can defend a bag of money with a gun in public, but you can't defend your daughter with one." That's a common pro-gun argument which is made when someone tries to say that you shouldn't be allowed to carry a concealed firearm except for special needs. And special needs always includes carrying money, like for business bank deposits. But carrying for defense of your life is never a special need with anti-gun folks. Therefore, they believe that money is more important to protect than life. Of course, what they're really implying is that making bank deposits makes you much more likely to be attacked, and therefore carrying a gun is justified in those circumstances, and it's really to protect the life of the money-carrier, not the money itself. But that's still flawed thinking, because there are many circumstances that make you more likely to be attacked, besides just having money. Like working a night shift in a bad part of town, for example. So the real criteria should now be "heightened danger". But that's still flawed thinking, because it condemns everyone else who lives under only "normal danger", whatever that is, doomed to be defenseless. And that's wrong too. EVERYONE should have the right to defend themselves, regardless of to what kind of risk someone else thinks they are exposed. Even the most unlikely of places and times sometimes experience violent crime. You can't predict when or where such things will occur. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #91 April 26, 2011 John, That is the most down-to-earth, common sense post relating to weapons that I have read in a long, long time. The irony lies in the truth of it.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #92 April 27, 2011 Quote That's a common pro-gun argument which is made when someone tries to say that you shouldn't be allowed to carry a concealed firearm except for special needs. And special needs always includes carrying money, like for business bank deposits. But carrying for defense of your life is never a special need with anti-gun folks. Therefore, they believe that money is more important to protect than life. the tragedy is this is that money can be found again later. Thieves often run into trouble after the crime when they try to use their gains. But you cannot undo the damage of physical assault and especially rape, including the really bad cases involving STDs or pregnancy. (and to be fair here, it's many GOP assholes that would force her to bear that child) As gun haters like to say- possessions aren't worth fighting over. Let them have it. But sometimes the criminals want more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #94 April 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteWell, they already DO make a number of decisions about hand held guns (which is what I was responding to), the limit doesn't seem to be anywhere near what most people on the pro-gun side fear. Nobody that I know has ever suggested limiting weapons to (as in JR's response to me) .22 cal weapons, but to Beachbum's point, they already limit machine guns and automatic weapons. Yes, yes, I see some people have a problem with that, but the courts have upheld the government IS within its rights to do so and it doesn't violate the 2nd. The Heller decision in D.C. specifically determined that handgun bans were illegal under the 2nd Amendment. Chicago will be next to fall under that ruling. . It also determined that some of "the people" (felons and the mentally ill) CAN have their 2nd Amendment right infringed. So that right clearly is NOT absolute.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #95 April 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell, they already DO make a number of decisions about hand held guns (which is what I was responding to), the limit doesn't seem to be anywhere near what most people on the pro-gun side fear. Nobody that I know has ever suggested limiting weapons to (as in JR's response to me) .22 cal weapons, but to Beachbum's point, they already limit machine guns and automatic weapons. Yes, yes, I see some people have a problem with that, but the courts have upheld the government IS within its rights to do so and it doesn't violate the 2nd. The Heller decision in D.C. specifically determined that handgun bans were illegal under the 2nd Amendment. Chicago will be next to fall under that ruling. . It also determined that some of "the people" (felons and the mentally ill) CAN have their 2nd Amendment right infringed. So that right clearly is NOT absolute. Samanitcs Having a right infringed is what you want to do to the 2nd. What you have described and used, is better definded as throwing away"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #96 April 27, 2011 samanitcs The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. Spelling Suggestions Powered By: Franklin Electronic Publishers Franklin puts a world of knowledge in your hand. Click here for Merriam-Webster's Speaking Dictionary & Thesaurus, and other fine handheld electronic references, personal organizers, and educational devices definded The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. 1.Deffand, du 2.definitude 3.definite 4.defender 5.defend 6.defendere 7.Deffand 8.defund 9.dividend 10.defiant 11.defendendo 12.diffident 13.defendant 14.definable 15.defoliant 16.definiendum 17.definiens 18.definitive Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #97 April 27, 2011 QuoteFor the more sophisticated weapons (like fully automatic), I think that additional restrictions, including regular education (i.e. yearly or something as long as you own the weapon) should be required. I would be VERY interested in your experience and knowledge about FA weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #98 April 27, 2011 QuoteIt also determined that some of "the people" (felons and the mentally ill) CAN have their 2nd Amendment right infringed. So that right clearly is NOT absolute. Yes, after they have been through due process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #99 April 27, 2011 QuoteAre you in favor of private firearms ownership? Yes. QuoteIf so please state if you are in favor of any restrictions to ownership, other than being a felon or adjudicated as mentally unstable or incompetent. Weapons that are issued to individual troops should be allowed to the average citizen. Quote If you are in favor are there any firearms you think should be bannned? Weapons that are issued to individual troops should be allowed to the average citizen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #100 April 27, 2011 QuoteThe stuff in between - your AR-15's and .50-caliber firearms - should be up to the states and cities where people live. You do know the intent of the 2nd was to allow the individual to be able to stand up to the Govt, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
