UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
is your dumb ass trying to imply that the founding fathers envisioned the type of firepower we have today?
The public face of gun control... Michael Moore
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
With respect ... that is still steaming from where the horse left it.
I guess Common Sense is the new term for Prohibition. Carrie Nation isn't dead; she just shed her religious overcoat. cn
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
ahem.
you should apologize for that. the NRA's efforts are demonstrable.
why do you think the ATF went so long without a director? why do you think the CDC can't publish studies that detail how a gun in your home is more likely to kill you or your family rather than an intruder? why do you think requirements and oversight on gun sellers is so lax?
please think before you speak.
no one is trying to prohibit arms.
although, when that did happen under clinton, tell me about how incredibly difficult it was to defend yourself.
it must have been hell, bear. i mean, right?
so disingenuous.
Rak on Tur'
Active Member
The NRA was calling for enforcing the rules we have in place. A mass murder isn't going to follow the laws anyways, but you know that. I realize you like to jerk the gun nuts chains.
Dui laws based off a set BAC level do not work, say from going from .08 to .05 like the insurance companies are pushing for. What does work is increased enforcement. All the dui arrests I made over the years the set BAC level hardly even was a issue, the average offender blew a .15 or higher. But now the laws are a bit on the crazy side, for example if you were sleeping off your buzz in the back seat of your vehicle but had the keys in your pocket you will be charged with a DUI. Because of intent, that's not right in my opinion.
Alaska has some of the harshest DUI laws in the nation, for a while I even enforced them. I can say with real world experience that only increased enforcement makes a difference, the lower BAC does nothing.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
No, my literate ass is saying the constitution's authors said exactly what they meant. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The apparently illiterate left thinks there is a musket in there somewhere.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
apparently, the illiterate you has not read heller. the second is clearly NOT absolute, as you have argued for previously.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Heller is an ugly compromise, just as many SCOTUS decisions are.
It's ironic that one of the rulings in Heller is that authorities can not ban weapons in common use. Using that logic, it would probably be permissible to ban muskets.
I would support a ban on muskets. We need musket free zones. For the children.
We also need Muscatel free zones. For the hobos.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
To the bolded 1:ahem.
you should apologize for that. the NRA's efforts are demonstrable.
why do you think the ATF went so long without a director? why do you think the CDC can't publish studies that detail how a gun in your home is more likely to kill you or your family rather than an intruder? why do you think requirements and oversight on gun sellers is so lax?
please think before you speak.
no one is trying to prohibit arms.
although, when that did happen under clinton, tell me about how incredibly difficult it was to defend yourself.
it must have been hell, bear. i mean, right?
so disingenuous.
Why should it be allowed to push a unilateral agenda? The CDC isn't equipped to expose the other side of the story: deaths and other sequelae of violence prevented by the real or presumed presence of the gun maybe being carried by that (nonuniformed!) civilian. That story cannot be told by the statisticians, just as no logician will attempt to prove a negative.
To the purple: Regulation on gun sellers is positively DRACONIAN considering that the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed to the citizen.
Examples of arms:
Lax, my maiden aunt Fanny.
To the bolded 2: I just destroyed that assertion.
To the lavender: Then why do I still have to jump through some police chief's (a civilian and an appointed pol) arbitrary hoops to obtain a license to carry?
I do not see why i would need to apologize. I disobey in a very civil manner, but if needed, i disobey. cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
This is an opinion of the current panel of Justices of SCOTUS. The next panel could might just as clearly say Horsepoo, or just as possibly undo the Second in its entirety. Their authority is temporal in so many senses. They are not arbiters of right and wrong; just of law for now.
Certainly not one of the Amendments is absolute. That is why it remains the duty of interested, engaged citizens to tell their leaders and civil servants what goes and what not. this often means standing firm against the implicit and sometimes overt intimidation by all those letter agencies who want to tell us what's best. Sometimes they have a point, and sometimes it'll take long messy struggle to bring them to Jebus. cn
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the apology would be for butchering the facts in the same fashion that a mentally unstable kid butchered a room full of first graders with his legally purchased, high capacity mags.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/opinion/sunday/the-nras-diversionary-tactics.html?_r=0
i know you don't like videos, so sometime later today i may write a synopsis of some rachel maddow bits that more thoroughly detail everything the NRA has dome to undermine existing laws on the books, especially those for gun sellers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/opinion/sunday/the-nras-diversionary-tactics.html?_r=0
i know you don't like videos, so sometime later today i may write a synopsis of some rachel maddow bits that more thoroughly detail everything the NRA has dome to undermine existing laws on the books, especially those for gun sellers.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
@ the bolded: precisely my point.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
There would be absolutely no point in compiling the wit and wisdom of an avowed collectivist on these matters. Collectivists hate and always have hated distribution of power. The crux of the matter isn't and never has been public safety, as evidenced by the yawns provoked when the probably salutary effect of civilian (nonuniformed!) carry against all violent crime is mentioned. The real problem? This is an instrument of power. cn
ceterum censeo Distribute real power; that is the philosophical basis of the Republic. cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
We agree on this. Where we have a difference is on what our civic responsibility is on influencing the future direction of the changes that will come. cn
desert dude
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
besides the fact that her compilation of facts and actions taken by the NRA to undermine enforcement of existing laws would destroy your scoffs at my assertion of such.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Which existing laws? perhaps the removal of the arbitrary blockage of applications to carry by citizens of every major urban area east of the Miss'ippi? If the NRA is behind that, I'll eat my hat. cn
I think you could make a case that the answer is yes. If you believe the purpose of the Second Amendment was to permit the citizenry to be armed in order to wage insurrection against tyranny again, should that ever become necessary, the framers must have envisioned a public capable of meeting that tyranny. I don't think the type of firepower is relevant, if you believe the people must be able to defeat the government. With handguns? Good luck.
I would split the Second Amendment into two parts, though: some weapons most sensibly controlled by the militia and others most sensibly controlled by the people. A gun would always seem most sensibly controlled by the people; if we lock all the guns away in the armories, the government need only seize control of the armories in order to deprive the people of the means to fight it. What can you do without even having a gun? But just as individual people probably weren't wheeling cannons around in the 1790s, a tank or a grenade launcher seems more sensibly controlled by the militia. The government could seize militia bases just as easily as they could armories, but at least if the people have guns they can fight.
Personally, I'm inclined to believe the right to rebel against tyranny is absolutely necessary, and I think the framers must have envisioned the people possessing sufficient force to meet tyranny, otherwise it would be an empty guarantee. The people secured liberty by force, and the people--collectively comprising the ultimate sovereign of this country--must always be able to secure liberty by the same force, lest we be subjugated and forced to surrender those precious freedoms our constitution is supposed to protect. The people, as the originators of the constitution and grantors of power to the government, must always be vested with the ability to seize that power back. We should never presume that our freedoms will always be unquestioned and absolute.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
muskets!!!