Guest Posted October 16, 2001 Report Posted October 16, 2001 "[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." U.S. Const. amend. II. What a CONCEPT it means what it says. To keep and bear arms is an individual right. It took 70 years after the miller case for the 5th Circuit superior court to finally make a REAL decision on the 2nd amendment. It may not go to the Supreme Court because the fed's won the part of the case they wanted to win, but if Emerson has a cow about it and really pushes it, it just might and the SC will be FORCED to make a decision on the 2nd amendment, and most likely they would be forced to go along with the the 5th circuit court because of the excellent way the Dicta was put together!!The FULL text of the decision!!There ya go Silk, let's get this gun debate on the road!! WE WON!!!! YES!!!! [ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]
Supreme Cmdr Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 ...uhm, does this mean I can unpack my Howitzer now then?
Guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 quote: ...uhm, does this mean I can unpack my Howitzer now then? Actually SC, I think that would be indecent exposure!! That's always been illegal... LOL
Guest $iLk Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 Let's be reasonable here Jaguar, not just the 2nd amendment.The First Ten amendments were held to be self-evident and were merely listed to keep government from encroaching on the rights of the people.As far as the second amendment, try to put yourself in the founding father's mentality. They had just gotten out of a war with a tyrannical government, whose first act at lexington and concord was to take away the guns of the americans.Would they have then wanted to take guns away from the people after insureing that government never overstepped it's bounds>?BTW Jaguar check this link out:A Blueprint for Ending Gun Control - Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 Silk,are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else?And if you're thinking of my post to the SC, look at it again, it's supposed to be funny!! lol
Guest $iLk Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 Oh no Jag I wasn't inciting argument, I was just wanting to encompass the whole bill of rights, as it does make our guns right cause plausible against "other" opinion.
Guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 Yep, and that is what makes this decision so excellent..it creates a precedent like we have never had before. the 5th has said in NO uncertain terms that 2nd amendment is an individual right and not a collective one as the gun grabbers have claimed. This is an excellent developement for us as 2nd amendment advocates. This sets a precedent for us and tosses the gun grabbers arguments out the window. And also if this goes to the SCOTUS, they can use it as a precedent and uphold it, this will put most gun laws at great peril, because they will not then stand up to constitutional muster!! This is a GREAT day for us, and a bad day for HCI and other socialistic organizations of that ilk!!
Guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 IMO, bad...real bad.I come from a country where guns are everywhere,and mostly in the wrong hands. I know how that ends up. Im a bit ignorant on the gun control policies of other countries besides the US and my own. Any Euro or Asian nation out there ban weapons completely?Crazy thought, but itd be better to allow civilians to carry swords instead of guns....heehee.
Guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 You and I definitely disagree on this one Tac, no if's and's or but's.The 2nd amendment is abundantly clear, it is an individual right, not a collective one, but, just as the first amendment has it's boundaries, libel laws, yelling fire in a movie theatre etc.Some regulation of the 2nd amendment is legal as well, such as convicted felons not owning firearms, background checks for CWP(Concealed Weapons Permits) Although Vermont does not agree with that. You do not need any permits to carry concealed in Vermont.Here in Oregon we need a CWP, and in Washington as well, I have both CWP's, I also carry at all times, as this is my right as a US citizen. Yes, I carry at ALL times, a nice little CZ-70 .32 caliber 10 shot pistol, it's the czech knock-off of the Walther PPK, 2 1/2 inch shot group at 50 yards, not bad if I do say so myself, but I digress!! The assault weapons ban, brady bill, and many other gun laws, if now pushed, will be ruled as unconstitutional. Some gun grabbers and of course the california legislature and grey davis are going to have many a sleepless night for a while, they are already trying to spin it, so the public believes that it actually helps them, but it is the exact opposite, it is a death nell for gun control advocates. It will now take a constitutional amendment for them to succeed, and that will NEVER happen!!By it being considered a collective right over the last 20 years or so, and not an individual right, it has allowed them to regulate it, NO MORE!!! The precedence has been set, it is an individual right, and therefore cannot be regulated as much as they have regulated it.Common sense still exists in some courts in this land!! [ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]
Epsilon 5 Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 quote:Im a bit ignorant on the gun control policies of other countries besides the US and my own. Any Euro or Asian nation out there ban weapons completely?This what I know about guns in Canada- You can possess any contact weapon (i.e. sword) but too many can be suspicious. You can also possess any BB gun.- You must be at least 18 (well DUH!)- You must not have a criminal record (at all)- You need a permit, and you need to prove regularily that you know how to handle them. You must prove that you also know how to lock them away.- Before giving you a permit they investigate on all they can find on you, to be sure you're not dangerous in any way (even slightly)- You cannot have military or specialised weapons.- You cannot have explosives (duh...)Basically you can only have pistol and hunting rifles, unless you are a armorer or specialised collector.
Thomas Siemens Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Tac: Crazy thought, but itd be better to allow civilians to carry swords instead of guns....heehee. Heh, no problem here in Germany. You may carry swords openly, but not some knifes (who can be hidden, or whose blades can be hidden), nor guns (shorter than 60 cm / 2 feet, who also can be hidden, among other "features"). Well, some people (like hunters) are allowed to carry rifles, but they have to get some kind of license (fire arm certificate?).Best regards.[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Thomas Siemens ]
Põdi Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 Gun ownership is pretty widespread in Switzerland (National Service and all that)Which is probably why 2 people were murdered in a jealous rage in my neighbourhood this Summer, and why a psycho with a grudge gunned down 14 members of a local parliament in central Switzerland a few weeks back.If gun conrol wasn't so lax in this country, 16 people might still be alive today.I'm not going to argue with your constitutional rights, so don't even go there. You know my views on the matter.
Emmett.hendrick Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 Guns are fairly restricted in Ireland.You can not carry a pistol of any kind and to get a rifle or shotgun you need permission from two farmers that you can shot on their land and I believe that you must be a registered member of a gun club. Even then you can only bring it out to specific events other than that it is restricted to having it in your home(and there may even be restrictions on that)Knifes and the like are a strict no! anybody caught carrying same can be arrested on sight pretty much.[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Emmett.hendrick ]
Menchise Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 Guns are also fairly restricted in Australia.Handguns are allowed, but automatic and semi-automatic weapons are banned.This was done in 1996 in response to the Port Arthur massacre (a psycho killed over 30 people in a restaurant with a semi-automatic).Japan is the ultimate success story of gun control. They have the most restrictive gun laws in the world. The entire country has about as many homicides per year as New York City has in a day. To say the least, that is very interesting.
aramike Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: Guns are also fairly restricted in Australia.Handguns are allowed, but automatic and semi-automatic weapons are banned.This was done in 1996 in response to the Port Arthur massacre (a psycho killed over 30 people in a restaurant with a semi-automatic).Japan is the ultimate success story of gun control. They have the most restrictive gun laws in the world. The entire country has about as many homicides per year as New York City has in a day. To say the least, that is very interesting.Japan also has traditionally had a strict code of moral conduct and hasn't been in a moral slide (our friggin' president was getting hummers!).At any rate, Japan was also the site of the subway nerve gas attack and has quite a few heavily armed terrorists floating around. Give and take.
Guest $iLk Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 My feelings on gun ownership specifically for self defense are that you have a right to possess any weapon that is available for purchase in your country.Thus, no RPG's or Missile Launchers.Gun laws themselves only restrict those who use guns legally. By banning guns you are only taking them out of the hands of those who use them with legal intentions. If I have a knife and someone breaks into my home with a gun - I am screwed. I should have the ability to return equal force.I believe I should be able to own any kind of weapon that could be reasonably assumed to be used for selected kills. No hand grenades or mass damage weapons, only weapons which can be used to target your attacker. Including Automatic Assault rifles. If I so chose.
Guest $iLk Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 Also, Jaguar sorry about the confusion of my first post, I was simply arguing against those who hadn't appeared yet. Thanks for the link, however lots of decisions about the 2nd ammendment have been struck down by the supreme court to leave room for states to decide. It will be good to get a federal mandate stating that the US government has no right to restrict gun ownership, but then states will have to comply. And some states aren't that good at rational thought.
Guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 OK, where do I start?Paddy, If someone wants to kill someone, they will find a way, those 2 that were killed, a knife would have done it just as easily, and the 14, a bomb would have done the job just as easily. A gun is a tool and it can be abused just as any other tool can. If you feel that you cannot be responsible with a firearm, do not allow that to make it so no one can be responsible with a firearm.And Menchise, as far as the low crime rate in Japan. It is 2 things, culture and police Kiosks about every 2 blocks. The police force is HUGE!! But, due to things like organized crime etc, crime in Japan is going WAY up. Also, firearms are a pariah to that culture, it is not honorable to them, although when I worked for a Japanese company, when they came to visit me here, they always wanted to go shooting. So, I would grab my guns, around 500 rounds each, and take them to the range for a little shooting.Japan is literally a police state, if you had a policeman for every 1000 people, you'd probably have a pretty low crime rate as well. So it is not success in gun control, per say, but a success in citizen control.You keep saying how New York has such a high crime rate, well, you pack 10 million people within a 10 mile area, and you are going to have a high crime rate, add to that that everyone except the criminals are disarmed, New York has some of the MOST restrictive gun laws in the country, and you have a criminal smorgasmord of fun. Lots of unarmed victims just waiting to be victimized. Here in Oregon, our crime rate is fairly low, but the population is growing, people have moved up here from California, to get away from thier socialist politicians(that's a different debate that I am now out of) and are amazed at the freedoms here. Armed robbery normally ends up with A: the armed robber dead, or B: the armed robber in the hospital, or C: he's lucky enough to find an unarmed victim and gets away with it. Chances are, he will come across an armed victim and be in a world of hurt. I have never been robbed, although a guy did try to pickpocket me once, he stopped in a hurry when he felt my holster, and did not put up any fight when I took him to the nearest security guard for arrest, he had 3 other wallets on him, and is probably out on the street again, but hopefully lesson learned.You all have been taught since childhood that you need to trust the government for your security, here in the US, they are trying to do that, but I will provide and be responsible for my own security thank you very much. Government police are reactive, as in they show up after a crime has been committed, whereas I can be proactive in my own defense and therefore it won't even get started. With the police, I am already a victim, but with myself, it stops before it starts.I own guns, LOT's of guns!! And I have never shot anyone, as a matter of fact here in the US 99.99999% of all guns have never been used in the commission of a crime. And you wish that they could take them away for that .00001%? Sounds a little overreactive to me!! No, make it illegal for lawful citizens to own guns, and only criminals will own guns. This is fact. California is the MOST restrictive state in the US, but thier armed crimerate is going way up, maybe it's not the guns, maybe it's something else? No, it's very EASY to blame guns for crimes, but guns do not commit crimes, people do.Again, guns are a tool, just as anything else, the way they are used are the problem.If you feel that you cannot be trusted with a firearm, then for god's sake don't buy one, but do not make so that those of us that CAN be responsible with a firearm and are, can't have one. That's wrong, pure and simply wrong.
Guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 quote: My feelings on gun ownership specifically for self defense are that you have a right to possess any weapon that is available for purchase in your country. Thus, no RPG's or Missile Launchers. And Silk, why shouldn't you own an RPG or a Missile Launcher? I am serious when I ask this. I can own either of those 2 things, so can you, we would just need to get a destructive dealers license.The second Amendment was not and is NOT for self defense exclusively, it was never meant to be. It was to allow the citizens of this country to ALWAYS be better armed then the government. Shoot, we should all have m-60's and 50 cal's, grenade launchers, etc. We should be allowed to have ANY weapon that the US military has. This was the TRUE spririt of the 2md amendment. This is a little ridiculous I know, I couldn't afford the ammo for a tank let alone the tank itself, or the jetplane, let alone the jet fuel. This is why the military is never allowed to be used against our own citizens, although during this emergency we are using Jet's to keep track and escort civilian aircraft.Also, weapons of mass destruction are a big no no for me, no reason for these weapons accept to kill as MANY people as possible and therefore civilians should not be allowed such weapons, and I speak ONLY of NBC.If a person can afford a tank or a jet, or whatever conventional weapon, then they should be allowed to have it.That is the true spirit behind the 2nd amendment, to allow us to be strong enough to overthrow a government that was ignoring or trampling on the constitution.
Guest $iLk Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 I agree to a point, but every one of our rights has limits.I don't think it would be wise to allow citizens to form their own strong arm armies however.Everyone should be armed, but everyone should have equal access to arms as well. Hell I wouldn't like rich criminals purchasing tanks and running my house over while I only had the money to get a machine gun...In either case I wouldn't care either way, so long as the fundamentals of the 2nd ammendment were carried out. Where to draw the line? NBC weapons we agree should not be allowed, but in the event of rebellion, wouldn't they still be able to overpower us?By quality of weapons at least.I'm just throwing these thoughts around because we are going to have to address them at some point. I don't agree with federal licensing anyway and believe if one person can get an rpg, so should I.We need to figure out a limit though.
Guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 I agree, I think that if a person has a clean criminal record, then they should be allowed to own whatever weapon they feel is necessary for thier piece of mind, and of course whatever they can afford.No, I don't want some nutcase owning a tank, although when I was in the military we had quite a few nuts that were in charge of the damn things!! LOL Private armies are illegal, but a state militia is not. Militia's by thier very nature are unorganized, and when in wartime they come together, they then become organized. The 2nd amendment was supposed to put the fear of the citizenry in the governments heart, knowing that if they overstepped, the citizens would come in and trample them to dust, and replace them with a government that would pay attention to the constitution.I agree, federal licensing should not be around. I think it is the states that should deal with such things as background checks etc, although having it centralized does make it MORE efficient, if you could call the federal government efficient.There is just one limit for me as far as weaponry is concerned, no NBC weapons, other then that it's fair game, unless you have a criminal record or are just plain nuts...
Guest $iLk Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 I agree, my only reservation being availability. I mean someone might ask SALESMAN:" Why do you need a tank sir?"ME:"Who want's to know it's my second amendment right?"SALESMAN:"Just curious sir no need to..."ME:"SHUT UP! The governments coming to get me!"$iLk speeds off down the road in his new M1A1 Abrahms...I hardly see a need for an artillery piece in my back yard, or land mines. Unless they were owned by the state. Individuals should only be allowed so much, and the government should not be able to regulate the state or individuals. quote:No, I don't want some nutcase owning a tank, although when I was in the military we had quite a few nuts that were in charge of the damn things!! LOL hehe.I agree, that's my point I guess, is that I don't trust anyone with "destructive" weaponsthe only alternative I see is to have the state control it through the use of the SDF...
Soback Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 Jaguar is right. If you want a tank you should be able to buy one, but I would say go through all the checks including you mental health first. If I have the money to have a tank in my back yard and am trained and know how to use it then why not. I mean if I want to kill someone, I can do it with sticks, stones, knifes, pens, pencils, hands, rullers, forks pretty much anything, but if I passed all the checks and deemed mentally stable I probably would be the safest person to own that tank or gun. So it's rediculous for someone to tell me that I can't own a gun but I go out to San Francisco for the evening out and might get mugged. I did got out there once, about 2 years ago. Well my car was towed and I needed to get to that place to pick it up with my buddies at 2 in the morning but we all came on my car so we had no way to get there. No cab would agree to go there either because it was a bad neigbourhood so we stopped a cop and actually had him convince a cab driver to drive us there. Now that says a lot. So if that cab driver had a gun ask yourself if he would be as much afraid to go there.[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Soback ]
Guest $iLk Posted October 17, 2001 Report Posted October 17, 2001 you are right... you wouldn't get mugged if you were driving down the street in a tank. My only point against tanks is it could violate paramilitary training laws. You need 3 people I believe to operate a tank.I think also that weapons which cause massive damage should not be outlawed but regulated. You can't have some John Doe defending his home with an RPG and blow the door off the hinges and take out his neighbors house. Anything which can be reasonably assumed to be used for self defense against an attacker should be unregulated except for mental checks and all guns and permits issued on a "shall issue" basis.Just my thoughts.We all agree on the 2nd amendment, just the extent to which it applies is hazy.Surely the founding fathers knew nothing of tanks so didn't take them into account. What we need are additional Posse Commitatus laws which restrict all federal troops (including marshals) from forming armies against the people. Lincoln's actions during the civil war were unconstitutional, therefore if any state wanted to leave, so long as a majority said yes it should leave. If enough want to stay, then form a new state like West VA did.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now