Gun Owners are their own worst enemy

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by 63dot

I think the King thing is a little bit of overstatement concerning Hamilton as it the strong central government thing. He wanted a viable, effective central government but not an overreaching entity like Westminster.

The way we look at the founding fathers will ultimately be marred by our current interpretations of what conservative and liberal are. I am sure in Germany what you consider those terms may differ with what we see in America.

My friend in Germany basically said that the conservatives over there were more like Obama than like Bush on many issues. The German liberals were to the left of American democrats. The idea of a national healthcare was not so vile to conservatives in Germany as it is to American republicans, am I right? To him, it was not a fighting point over there in politics.

I'm not German..

[63dot]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

I'm not German..

oops!

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

It says "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"

It doesn't say anything about the militia being requisite to the right to keep and bear arms. Not even close

So, are they supposed to be two different sentences? Why does the first half even exist, since it apparently means nothing? If it's not even close, why is it included in the sentence? Seeing that it's written like something a first-grader would write, it's no wonder no one can actually figure out what it means. Or doesn't mean. Or is supposed to mean. Or means to mean.

[63dot]

Originally Posted by samiwas

So, are they supposed to be two different sentences? Why does the first half even exist, since it apparently means nothing? If it's not even close, why is it included in the sentence? Seeing that it's written like something a first-grader would write, it's no wonder no one can actually figure out what it means. Or doesn't mean. Or is supposed to mean. Or means to mean.

Liberal argument: We no longer need firearms because we don't need a militia per se.

Conservative argument: The militia also includes individuals protecting their own property, which is just another part of America. An invader may come onto our shores successfully but would have a devil of a time going home to home with uncertainty behind every doorway.

Neither argument has any attachment to reality. We can't simply take away all guns because we don't need a militia and it may be smart to rewrite this amendment to be more clear for today's needs. Also it is a stretch to say that a well armed militia of individuals also means that guns are for recreation and protection from (domestic) home invasions by criminals.

The court is a little more conservative so it's likely they will continue to hold to the concept of a militia including the use of personal home protection and recreational use. They could argue that it doesn't say what a militia isn't.

I say let's be done with a strict reading of the 2nd only seeing "militias" or a self-serving reading saying that the 2nd implies something the founding fathers never debated much over (home invasion and recreational gun use) and rewrite it. Have both republicans and democrats in Congress agree to letting Americans bear arms, but within a reasonable context. What the heck is wrong with that?

If you don't like guns, then don't buy them.

And if the only legal guns are within a reasonable context, then I don't think anti-gun lobbyists would be so offended. When a few atypical pro-gun people go on a rampage, pretty much laugh at the victims of mass shootings or show no outrage, and get off on waiting to continue to build to their arsenal of really big stuff, then the debate turns into name calling. While I don't condone Ted Nugent, he does admit there are some crazy psychos who give the regular hunter like him a bad name. I may not like Ted's politics, but I don't see him blowing away a theater. However, a man with a similar arsenal like Ted Nugent's thousands of guns may be a psycho and it's the latter why we do need stricter gun control laws. Just like most of us are safe drivers in safe conditions doesn't make it so we should not wear seat belts. The seat belt laws are there for the bad drivers and bad conditions that sometimes arise just like the gun laws are used to help prevent the mass homicides from a psycho with an assault rifle. While he could still do a lot of damage with a single action revolver, it wouldn't be as bad. Imagine if the psycho was allowed to carry a suitcase nuke legally. It's all about scale and an assault rifle for an individual borders on insane.

I don't see a need for AR-15s and Uzis for the average man or woman but at least rifles/shotguns and (possibly) handguns. The concealable concept of the handgun does have me a little reserved on that one though but I am totally OK with reasonable rifles and shotguns (and not the very short shotguns I sold at Big 5). That being said, like many guys who like gear, I was impressed by how short it was and still legal in California and I assume it wouldn't fly in other states. Also my buddy's AK-47 was an amazing piece of machinery but really nothing an individual citizen would need.

Let's say our government goes bad or we are invaded by a foreign army (in a day when we aren't rich or strong). I still don't think that army would get very far if we launched a Viet Cong style terrorist war against them even with small arms. What small guns we have does make it unattractive for anybody to invade us or for a domestic dictator to take over.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by 63dot

Liberal argument: We no longer need firearms because we don't need a militia per se.

Conservative argument: The militia also includes individuals protecting their own property, which is just another part of America. An invader may come onto our shores successfully but would have a devil of a time going home to home with uncertainty behind every doorway.

Neither argument has any attachment to reality. We can't simply take away all guns because we don't need a militia and it may be smart to rewrite this amendment to be more clear for today's needs. Also it is a stretch to say that a well armed militia of individuals also means that guns are for recreation and protection from (domestic) home invasions by criminals.

The court is a little more conservative so it's likely they will continue to hold to the concept of a militia including the use of personal home protection and recreational use. They could argue that it doesn't say what a militia isn't.

I say let's be done with a strict reading of the 2nd only seeing "militias" or a self-serving reading saying that the 2nd implies something the founding fathers never debated much over (home invasion and recreational gun use) and rewrite it. Have both republicans and democrats in Congress agree to letting Americans bear arms, but within a reasonable context. What the heck is wrong with that?

I don't see a need for AR-15s and Uzis for the average man or woman but at least rifles/shotguns and (possibly) handguns. The concealable concept of the handgun does have me a little reserved on that one though but I am totally OK with reasonable rifles and shotguns (and not the very short shotguns I sold at Big 5). That being said, like many guys who like gear, I was impressed by how short it was and still legal in California and I assume it wouldn't fly in other states. Also my buddy's AK-47 was an amazing piece of machinery but really nothing an individual citizen would need.

Let's say our government goes bad or we are invaded by a foreign army (in a day when we aren't rich or strong). I still don't think that army would get very far if we launched a Viet Cong style terrorist war against them even with small arms. What small guns we have does make it unattractive for anybody to invade us or for a domestic dictator to take over.

Keep in mind that I (liberal) have never called for a ban of guns. I don't think that's realistic. But, I wouldn't care if they were banned. I would love if they didn't exist at all.

What mostly amuses me is the frothing-at-the-mouth of the pro-gun side defending their need/want of enough firepower to take down a medium-sized city.

[Squadleader]

Originally Posted by 63dot

Liberal argument: We no longer need firearms because we don't need a militia per se.

Conservative argument: The militia also includes individuals protecting their own property, which is just another part of America. An invader may come onto our shores successfully but would have a devil of a time going home to home with uncertainty behind every doorway.

Neither argument has any attachment to reality. We can't simply take away all guns because we don't need a militia and it may be smart to rewrite this amendment to be more clear for today's needs. Also it is a stretch to say that a well armed militia of individuals also means that guns are for recreation and protection from (domestic) home invasions by criminals.

The court is a little more conservative so it's likely they will continue to hold to the concept of a militia including the use of personal home protection and recreational use. They could argue that it doesn't say what a militia isn't.

I say let's be done with a strict reading of the 2nd only seeing "militias" or a self-serving reading saying that the 2nd implies something the founding fathers never debated much over (home invasion and recreational gun use) and rewrite it. Have both republicans and democrats in Congress agree to letting Americans bear arms, but within a reasonable context. What the heck is wrong with that?

If you don't like guns, then don't buy them.

And if the only legal guns are within a reasonable context, then I don't think anti-gun lobbyists would be so offended. When a few atypical pro-gun people go on a rampage, pretty much laugh at the victims of mass shootings or show no outrage, and get off on waiting to continue to build to their arsenal of really big stuff, then the debate turns into name calling. While I don't condone Ted Nugent, he does admit there are some crazy psychos who give the regular hunter like him a bad name. I may not like Ted's politics, but I don't see him blowing away a theater. However, a man with a similar arsenal like Ted Nugent's thousands of guns may be a psycho and it's the latter why we do need stricter gun control laws.

I don't see a need for AR-15s and Uzis for the average man or woman but at least rifles/shotguns and (possibly) handguns. The concealable concept of the handgun does have me a little reserved on that one though but I am totally OK with reasonable rifles and shotguns (and not the very short shotguns I sold at Big 5). That being said, like many guys who like gear, I was impressed by how short it was and still legal in California and I assume it wouldn't fly in other states. Also my buddy's AK-47 was an amazing piece of machinery but really nothing an individual citizen would need.

Let's say our government goes bad or we are invaded by a foreign army (in a day when we aren't rich or strong). I still don't think that army would get very far if we launched a Viet Cong style terrorist war against them even with small arms. What small guns we have does make it unattractive for anybody to invade us or for a domestic dictator to take over.

Nice diatribe but Heller v DC already settled that matter....and quite frankly I dont care what you think I have a need for, as again, that matter was already settled..Did you have to swear that that little diddy
to become a member of the bar..??

[63dot]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Keep in mind that I (liberal) have never called for a ban of guns. I don't think that's realistic. But, I wouldn't care if they were banned. I would love if they didn't exist at all.

What mostly amuses me is the frothing-at-the-mouth of the pro-gun side defending their need/want of enough firepower to take down a medium-sized city.

Those gun owners who want a small arsenal are not like most gun owners or those who believe in the right to bear arms. They give anybody who believes in the right to bear arms a bad name. They are largely uneducated and suffer from poor self-esteem and threaten the right most Americans hold dear to them. Their irrational ways, and the more recent sick worshiping of Chris Dorner, give the government a good excuse to ban all guns for all people.

Most gun owners, however, are arguing for the right to simply bear arms and not have that taken away. They want something (practical) for recreation and home protection, not to start an army or ransack an elementary school.

I am a liberal, too but I understand the right to bear arms as a practical way to have self-protection or in bad areas or dangerous jobs. I went to school in a terrible area with a lot of gun violence and I have been in jobs where there is nearly a shooting every day between two rival California gangs and I don't think it's proper to make a law banning guns for honest people who are afraid and can't afford to hire an ex-Navy SEAL. From your computer at home, I think you probably feel safe but try going to night school near the Tenderloin in S.F. It was a common sight to see the parking garage attendant armed like a Special Forces guy and I actually welcomed his presence. That same guy though does not belong with same gear at church or noontime baseball game. And I don't see the need for people in dresses and tuxedos going to a speech by the president all packing heat though. There has to be limits.

Both extreme sides of the gun argument are impossible to talk to and fly off the handle if there's anything approaching a compromise.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by samiwas

What mostly amuses me is the frothing-at-the-mouth of the pro-gun side defending their need/want of enough firepower to take down a medium-sized city.

Well, at least they have logic on their side

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by samiwas

So, are they supposed to be two different sentences? Why does the first half even exist, since it apparently means nothing? If it's not even close, why is it included in the sentence? Seeing that it's written like something a first-grader would write, it's no wonder no one can actually figure out what it means. Or doesn't mean. Or is supposed to mean. Or means to mean.

Let's treat the 2nd like an algebraic expression for a moment, and supplement some terms till we get an equivalent.

"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.”

"A well regulated highway system being necessary for interstate commerce, the right of the people to keep and bear automobiles shall not be infringed.”

So you believe the second sentence says you need to be on the highway system to have a car?

[63dot]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Let's treat the 2nd like an algebraic expression for a moment, and supplement some terms till we get an equivalent.

"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.”

"A well regulated highway system being necessary for interstate commerce, the right of the people to keep and bear automobiles shall not be infringed.”

So you believe the second sentence says you need to be on the highway system to have a car?

That's fairly obvious that's why we should add to it to have weapons for our self-defense and of course for recreation (where most weapons are fired) or do away with the militia part. This is the 21st century and there's no fear of King George III or any other monarch sending in the redcoats. Anybody who reads way more into didn't study the history behind those times.

In many of the letters from the times that talked about how we should run our country, many ideas came forth and being so vulnerable we needed guns in order to have a militia. As time went on throughout the centuries of course many have believed the 2nd was not related to militias, or England, but for modern purposes. We see through the lens of our times but in those days it was relevant to have ordinary citizens supplement the military.

Instead of muscling over people who really know what the 2nd amendment is about and saying that personal self-defense and recreational reasons were absolutely and exclusively what the founding fathers had in mind (which is highly unlikely), and thus look stupid and narrow in the process, write your congressperson for a way to protect your guns.

At the end of the day, we need to have the right to bear arms and have that written somewhere in today's context of personal protection and recreation. When I say recreation, I mean things like target practice and not going off and shooting anything that moves for fun or taking out signs and traffic lights.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Nice diatribe but Heller v DC already settled that matter....

Please bear in mind that the District of Columbia v. Heller decision was split 5-4.

If the court swings more to the left, future rulings could easily go the other way.

[eric/]

Thought this was worth mentioning, since often times it's argued that you can't hurt as many people with a weapon that isn't a firearm.

Link

A knife-wielding attacker killed three people and wounded 11 others in a tourist district on the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam, a government official said Tuesday.
The incident took place in Tumon on Guam's west coast, said Andy Gibson, an official in Gov. Eddie Calvo's office.
Around 10 p.m. Monday, the man drove onto a sidewalk by the Tumon Sands Plaza and Outrigger Guam Resort, according to the Pacific Daily News, the local newspaper.
He crashed into a convenience store, left his vehicle and began stabbing people, the newspaper reported.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Let's treat the 2nd like an algebraic expression for a moment, and supplement some terms till we get an equivalent.

"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.”

"A well regulated highway system being necessary for interstate commerce, the right of the people to keep and bear automobiles shall not be infringed.”

So you believe the second sentence says you need to be on the highway system to have a car?

No. I think it's an equally-poorly written sentence whose meaning can't fully be determined, because the two sentences barely relate to each other. However, it's written like they are supposed to relate to each other. So which is it? Who knows? Unfortunely, poor choice of wording has led to great confusion, and each side believes their interpretation to be correct. Unless we bring back the founding fathers from the grave and ask them, no one is absolutely right.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Please bear in mind that the District of Columbia v. Heller decision was split 5-4.

If the court swings more to the left, future rulings could easily go the other way.

Exactly why SCOTUS has lost credibility. There is way too much bias rather than completely impartial judicial evaluation.

Ginsberg and Sotomayor are especially pathetic. No mystery how they will rule on the issues. I doubt they even bother reviewing the case specifics.

----------

Originally Posted by samiwas

No. I think it's an equally-poorly written sentence whose meaning can't fully be determined, because the two sentences barely relate to each other. However, it's written like they are supposed to relate to each other. So which is it? Who knows? Unfortunely, poor choice of wording has led to great confusion, and each side believes their interpretation to be correct. Unless we bring back the founding fathers from the grave and ask them, no one is absolutely right.

It's pretty clear. Militias are critical in maintaining freedom, and the right to to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I think some feign ignorance to suggest complexity where there is none.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Exactly why SCOTUS has lost credibility. There is way too much bias rather than completely impartial judicial evaluation.

Complete impartiality does not exist in human beings.

Perhaps you're thinking of the planet Vulcan.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Complete impartiality does not exist in human beings.

Perhaps you're thinking of the planet Vulcan.

Nonsense. I've been on jury duty several times and I've always let the merits of the case play out before making up my mind.

Otherwise there really is no point in having a judicial system at all.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Nonsense. I've been on jury duty several times and I've always let the merits of the case play out before making up my mind.

Otherwise there really is no point in having a judicial system at all.

What leads you to believe that Ginsberg and Sotomayor are "especially pathetic" at doing what you find so easy to do yourself?

[63dot]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

What leads you to believe that Ginsberg and Sotomayor are "especially pathetic" at doing what you find so easy to do yourself?

I think that poster doesn't like the "liberal" interpretations of a law. They can't make law, as we all know, but within reason they can "interpret" it.

Though I am a liberal and have either been a democrat or green party, many of the so-called interpretations of liberal justices have stretched the meaning to fit a more liberal point of view instead of looking at the law at its face. If liberals don't like a law, then write a new one.

That being said, a conservative justice some years back (I can't recall) did the same thing with a conservative filter and tried to say the founding fathers were very much into home protection and especially recreational gun use so the 2nd was "meant" to cover that, not just militias. It was culturally implied he said. It is true that many did not eat meat unless they had a gun, but I am still not convinced the 2nd was about them per se. We were such a delicate democracy and there was no doubt England was gunning for us and it wasn't a matter of if they would launch attacks, but when.

But there's not written evidence from the time that suggests that the 2nd wasn't either all about militias or largely about it. Again, like I mentioned, and just like the liberals should make laws instead of putting their filter on it, the conservatives need to include a clear representation of guns and gun ownership for the sake of guns. It's not that crazy to own (small) guns for various reasons and if written properly, I don't think the liberals would be all over that one except for the extremists who are against all guns in every case.

We won't get anywhere if the voices of a very vocal minority on both sides of the gun issue continue to dominate the discussion. Most of my customers and fellow guns salesmen had a moderate point of view. Background checks were the rule and nobody thought it was a bad thing. We didn't sell AK-47s and our customers did not ask for it except for the occasional extremist who didn't like our stock and asked for stuff that was illegal or not deemed right for the image of our national level sports store. Like I mentioned before we had some pretty short, but still legal, shotguns for sale and again the occasional extremist would ask if they could get a smaller/shorter one. On the other hand the self-righteous anti-gun people would call me evil or somehow influencing their kids into illegal activities. Yes, we sold plenty of clothes and also did a great business in then fashionable gangsta watches and clothing, but it's a stretch to say we "helped" the gun toting youth gangs. We got it from both sides like I am here sometimes on this forum.

I think the extremists on both sides know that the majority of Americans support some sort of reasonable gun control and neither is our government going to seize all guns and become North Korea nor will they brainwash our youth into being crazed first shooter fodder fit for tomorrow's US Army. Guns are an uncomfortable part of our society, but they are here to stay and what we can do is to reasonably control their sales and usage without being overreaching.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by 63dot

I think that poster doesn't like the "liberal" interpretations of a law. They can't make law, as we all know, but within reason they can "interpret" it.

In my experience, an "activist judge" is any judge ruling against their political cause.

It happens on both the right and the left.

[63dot]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

In my experience, an "activist judge" is any judge ruling against their political cause.

It happens on both the right and the left.

Historically, more judges appointed by republicans have been more liberal than the republicans who appointed them. As a general rule, the entire field of law is quite a bit more liberal than the general public. Does that mean the field of law is to the far left? No, but definitely more liberal than the public at large.

The field tends to favor the liberal which then means a hang em high conservative judge pretty much doesn't fit well in the field any more than an ultra liberal does in the ranks of Wall Street. There are always exceptions but your MBAs are going to tend towards the conservative and the lawyers will tend towards the liberal.

Looking through concurrences and dissents over the history of American jurisprudence, the liberal justices seem to get the upper hand as time goes on. Interpretations of an amendment which may have seemed to take a moderate stance get interpreted more towards the liberal as the years pass by.

It's hard to imagine that our legal system was largely founded on both sides of the issue of physical estates, trespassing, and what means were considered legal to protect them. At one time it was customary to have a gun trigger tied to a string which could be set off by a trespasser but the instances of innocents getting hurt set the field in motion, so to speak. At a certain point human life became more important than property and the balance of just what force can be used to protect property would morph into our legal system. Those torts would be the stem that would make the greater umbrella of "torts" under which torts, contracts, and criminal law would be covered. Anyway, stupid history lesson over!

[eric/]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

In my experience, an "activist judge" is any judge ruling against their political cause.

It happens on both the right and the left.

An activist judge is a judge who attempts to interpret the Constitution outside of what it's literal meaning is. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by eric/

An activist judge is a judge who attempts to interpret the Constitution outside of what it's literal meaning is. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.

or more realistically, an activist judge is a judge who's had to interpret a vaguely worded phrase from the Constitution and didn't come up with the "literal meaning" some political activist made up

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

or more realistically, an activist judge is a judge who's had to interpret a vaguely worded phrase from the Constitution and didn't come up with the "literal meaning" some political activist made up

Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people?

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people?

you political activists are all alike!

[Anonymous Freak]

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

or more realistically, an activist judge is a judge who's had to interpret a vaguely worded phrase from the Constitution and didn't come up with the "literal meaning" some political activist made up

Yup. That's the big problem with the second amendment - both extremes see it as cut-and-dry in their favor.

See, it says guns are for the militia, not the general public!

See, it says guns are for the people, not just the militia!