Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 3, 2013, 11:25 AM   #76
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Just out of curiosity, what is your definition?
As far as someone being allowed to carry a gun on them any time? Someone who not only has no history of any mental illness or any criminal record, but also displays competency during required rigorous training and testing, as well as possesses a knowledge of all required laws and a willingness and desire to follow them to the strictest standards.

Just "being a good person" should not qualify you to carry a gun and use it as you see fit.

NickZac is one of the few gun people out there who I have felt displays a true willingness to do the right thing, or to at least have discussions about it.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 12:26 PM   #77
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
As far as someone being allowed to carry a gun on them any time? Someone who not only has no history of any mental illness or any criminal record, but also displays competency during required rigorous training and testing, as well as possesses a knowledge of all required laws and a willingness and desire to follow them to the strictest standards.

Just "being a good person" should not qualify you to carry a gun and use it as you see fit.

NickZac is one of the few gun people out there who I have felt displays a true willingness to do the right thing, or to at least have discussions about it.
Thanks for the reply. I'm glad to hear that in your opinion I am qualified to carry a concealed weapon.

Sadly, the City of New York throws in additional qualifications... i.e. political connections.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 12:36 PM   #78
PracticalMac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chundles View Post
How is everyone having guns going to stop a tyrannical government? Especially when that government has access to nukes?

The proper solution is to just give everyone nukes.
I can imagine it now, red neck in barely together 70's beat up truck speeding down highway with nuke in back...
__________________
FireWire 1394 Intelligent network guaranteed data transfer, 1500mA power, Ethernet compatible
Read: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 70% faster then USB2
Write: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 48% faster
PracticalMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 01:04 PM   #79
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
As far as someone being allowed to carry a gun on them any time? Someone who not only has no history of any mental illness or any criminal record, but also displays competency during required rigorous training and testing, as well as possesses a knowledge of all required laws and a willingness and desire to follow them to the strictest standards.
I'll go a step further.

I believe an "upstanding citizen" wouldn't insist on carrying a loaded gun at all times. An "upstanding citizen" would embrace peace and understand the risk in carrying his gun outweighs his/her personal need to feel secure.

The most "upstanding citizens" are armed with compassion, patience, peace and courage.

They don't need to carry guns.

Just my two cents.
citizenzen is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 01:52 PM   #80
jasonvp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Northern VA
Send a message via AIM to jasonvp
I think the opening sentence in the essay needs to be re-read by everyone. It said:

Quote:
It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it.
That last part of the Second Amendment, the part that reads, "...shall not be infringed." is what the author is referring to. As it turns out, any "gun control" law on the books is an infringement on that right, and is therefore, technically: illegal.

If you're serious about gun control, get the votes together to amend the Constitution. Stop blithering about the need for more infringement laws and go whole hog. Pass an amendment that repeals the Second or significantly changes its wording.

jas
jasonvp is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 01:55 PM   #81
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
You're forgetting all about the militia part at the start...
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 01:56 PM   #82
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
You're forgetting all about the militia part at the start...
Didn't SCOTUS already have something to say about that?
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 01:57 PM   #83
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Didn't SCOTUS already have something to say about that?
Yeah, in 2010. I presume they will change their mind.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:02 PM   #84
jasonvp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Northern VA
Send a message via AIM to jasonvp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
You're forgetting all about the militia part at the start...
I've forgotten nothing. I actually understand the Second Amendment as written versus trying to spin it. It very clearly states that we as people have that right to keep and bear, and said right shall not be infringed. It's not talking about the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms, otherwise the word people wouldn't be included in the writing.

Again, the author's simple point is: stop bandying about and get the Constitution amended if you don't like the Second. Any other law controlling arms is, by definition, an infringement of the people's rights by the government.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp, really.

jas
jasonvp is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:08 PM   #85
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonvp View Post
Again, the author's simple point is: stop bandying about and get the Constitution amended if you don't like the Second. Any other law controlling arms is, by definition, an infringement of the people's rights by the government.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp, really.

jas
There are already restrictions on that "right".
__________________
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
skunk is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:08 PM   #86
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonvp View Post
I've forgotten nothing. I actually understand the Second Amendment as written versus trying to spin it. It very clearly states that we as people have that right to keep and bear, and said right shall not be infringed. It's not talking about the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms, otherwise the word people wouldn't be included in the writing.

Again, the author's simple point is: stop bandying about and get the Constitution amended if you don't like the Second. Any other law controlling arms is, by definition, an infringement of the people's rights by the government.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp, really.

jas
I think you are taking a far too black and white view of the constitution. The supreme court has always re-interpreted stuff.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:10 PM   #87
jasonvp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Northern VA
Send a message via AIM to jasonvp
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk View Post
There are already restrictions on that "right".
I understand that, and technically by following the letter of the original law of the land: those restrictions are invalid. I'm certainly not going to challenge them and get my butt thrown in jail while a lawyer appeals the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But it doesn't invalidate the fact that those restrictions are technically illegal.

jas
jasonvp is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:12 PM   #88
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonvp View Post
I've forgotten nothing. I actually understand the Second Amendment as written versus trying to spin it. It very clearly states that we as people have that right to keep and bear, and said right shall not be infringed. It's not talking about the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms, otherwise the word people wouldn't be included in the writing.

Again, the author's simple point is: stop bandying about and get the Constitution amended if you don't like the Second. Any other law controlling arms is, by definition, an infringement of the people's rights by the government.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp, really.

jas

Actually, what you are getting into is semantics, which none of us here are in any position to argue how the meaning of the sentence is stated, because .. well, here we go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution
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.
Semantically, "militia" and "right" are compound subjects in the sentence, with "shall" being the singular verb. That makes the verb applicable to both sides, meaning that neither shall be infringed.

Furthermore, "infringed" as defined by the US Constitution, states:

Quote:
infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: NMW

In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.
So your 'shall not be infringed' argument carries no weight, as I believe SCOTUS has a bit more knowledge on the fact and meaning than you.

BL.
bradl is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:16 PM   #89
jasonvp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Northern VA
Send a message via AIM to jasonvp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
I think you are taking a far too black and white view of the constitution.
Am I? Please tell me how you interpret the Second Amendment? And explain why it is you interpret it that way.

Quote:
The supreme court has always re-interpreted stuff.
And generally when "gun control" laws have appeared on their docket, they've voted in favor of what the amendment to the Constitution says.

jas
jasonvp is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:22 PM   #90
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonvp View Post
Am I? Please tell me how you interpret the Second Amendment? And explain why it is you interpret it that way.



And generally when "gun control" laws have appeared on their docket, they've voted in favor of what the amendment to the Constitution says.

jas
Which is why they did nothing on the assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994. I see now. Bad SCOTUS. BAD! go to your room!



BL.
bradl is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:27 PM   #91
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonvp View Post
Am I? Please tell me how you interpret the Second Amendment? And explain why it is you interpret it that way.
The most gun control heavy way to interpret it would be to argue that it merely states that the army reservists (a.k.a "the militia") have to be allowed to have guns as long as people are generally allowed to join it perhaps.

Personally I think the militia statement is significant (it is right there in black and white after all), and that compulsory education, and preventing the mentally unstable from access to guns would be perfectly legitimate, but with a wider idea of what militia means than merely army reservists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonvp View Post
And generally when "gun control" laws have appeared on their docket, they've voted in favor of what the amendment to the Constitution says.
In recent years they have voted (5-4) in favour of your interpretation that is true. But that may well change in the future.

Demographics mean that US politics is going to become more liberal over time.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:38 PM   #92
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
Which is why they did nothing on the assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994. I see now. Bad SCOTUS. BAD! go to your room!



BL.

Did the NRA ever challenge the law in court?
__________________
If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
rdowns is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:56 PM   #93
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
Which is why they did nothing on the assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994. I see now. Bad SCOTUS. BAD! go to your room!



BL.
The assault weapon ban was not worthy of challenge, as it was purely cosmetic in scope and really was moronic from the outset (as I suspect any future assault weapon ban will be).
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:58 PM   #94
MadeTheSwitch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
Firearms are stored in a vault or full safe. Only I have the password/key. Basic safety training for all is yes. I rarely carry as I tend to avoid places that I feel I would need to carry a gun with me to be safe.
You avoid places that you feel you would need a gun to be safe, but yet you have a gun in your house in order to feel safe? I am not understanding this logic.

Quote:
My advice to someone who feels they need a gun in the shower is to start looking for a nicer neighborhood.
I could just as easily extend that thinking out to anyone feeling the need for a gun in any room of the house. And that they too should start looking for a nicer neighborhood. I am not sure why needing a gun with you in the bathroom is bad, but needing it in the bedroom or wherever you store it is good. Can't a home invasion happen just as easily while you are in the shower as opposed to sitting on the couch?

Another thing I thought of along the babysitter lines I had yesterday are family visits. Lots of parents let their kids go stay with Grandma or have Grandma come over and watch the kids. So, unless she is a rifle toting granny, I guess that's all out, right? More examples of how this fear based logic doesn't give people more freedom, it gives them less.
MadeTheSwitch is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 03:27 PM   #95
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonvp View Post
I understand that, and technically by following the letter of the original law of the land: those restrictions are invalid. I'm certainly not going to challenge them and get my butt thrown in jail while a lawyer appeals the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But it doesn't invalidate the fact that those restrictions are technically illegal.
How are those restrictions "technically illegal"?
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 03:55 PM   #96
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch View Post
I am not sure why needing a gun with you in the bathroom is bad, but needing it in the bedroom or wherever you store it is good. Can't a home invasion happen just as easily while you are in the shower as opposed to sitting on the couch?
Apparently he hasn't seen "Psycho".
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 05:23 PM   #97
Chundles
macrumors G4
 
Chundles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Gong, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by PracticalMac View Post
I can imagine it now, red neck in barely together 70's beat up truck speeding down highway with nuke in back...
Nukes in ailes at the local sports and bomb stores.

Small tactical nukes at the checkout.
__________________
This is going straight to the Pool Room
Chundles is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 05:47 PM   #98
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Unfortunately, the Second Amendment was written so poorly (the language of it sounds like a sentence from a poorly-educated middle-schooler) that people can interpret it to mean whatever they want.

"It means anyone ever should be allowed to have a gun!"
"It means militias can have guns!"
"It means that only well-regulated militias can have guns!"
"It's a stupid piece of writing that serves no purpose!"

I still think the majority of gun nuts are so specifically because the Second Amendment exists and it's a way for them to say "Look at me! I exercise my rights!!! Don't infringe on me!"
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 05:52 PM   #99
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chundles View Post
Nukes in ailes at the local sports and bomb stores.

Small tactical nukes at the checkout.
The tactical nukes would be be positioned to attract impulse buyers, then? I like your thinking
skunk is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 05:57 PM   #100
quasinormal
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia.
This is literally one god damned stupid thread and in monumentally poor taste given recent events.

IMO those suggesting gun ownership is necessary against the possibility of government tyranny is guilty of treason and should be shot with their own weapons.
quasinormal is offline   1 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2nd Amendment was only for muskets, you say? lostngone Politics, Religion, Social Issues 307 Apr 6, 2014 01:05 AM
Does/Should the 2nd Amendment Extend to Missiles & ICBMs? guzhogi Politics, Religion, Social Issues 20 Feb 7, 2014 09:31 AM
Gun waiting period ‘burdens’ 2nd Amendment lostngone Politics, Religion, Social Issues 203 Dec 23, 2013 04:27 PM
Why do people ignore 3/4 of the 2nd Amendment? Michael Goff Politics, Religion, Social Issues 144 May 22, 2013 12:48 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC