Can I infer from this quote that you think the US govt should go ahead and vote in Obamas Supreme Court nominee?
Senator Larry Martin?
- Thread starter DuckDitchTiger
- Start date
Can I infer from this quote that you think the US govt should go ahead and vote in Obamas Supreme Court nominee?
You have no understanding of the second amendment. It is definitely NOT a constitutional right.
It pretty much is. Keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is fairly explicit. The point of open carry being a right is that, because it's enshrined in the constitution it's not something that we should have to ask the government permission to do via CWP, etc. If you don't have to ask the government for permission, then there isn't much of a point to the concealed part outside of people who are simply uncomfortable being around guns. People are uncomfortable being around guns largely because they spend no time around them or don't realize that they are around them all the time anyway.
Now, that's just the explanation. Personally I prefer abundant concealed carry but concealed holsters can be a pain and it would definitely make life easier to just have one on my belt.
How does the second amendment guarantee open carry? It says that people may keep and bear arms for the purpose of a well-regulated militia. It does not expressely forbid open carry, but any governmental body, be it the federal, state, or local government, could ban open carry and not infringe upon anyone's constitutional rights.
And as I said earlier, if it were not for the supreme court broadening the second amendment, I think a case could be made that only people that were members of an official militia could have guns. I am not sure how allowing Joe Shmoe to own 20 guns has anything to do with "a WELL REGULATED militia."
Is this the bill that that dipshit Lee Bright is crying over? If you're for anything that moron wants to pass I feel for you.
Disagree. At the time, there was also no police force. I know exactly what a militia is, and how it is defined by the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903. However, at the time, the US also also had no standing army, and nobody at the time could have predicted that our current military would have 500,000+ members, the most technologically advanced military in the world, and a nuclear arsenal. The intent, as you say, was for the defense of the country against an agressor, such as Great Britain. There is no way the intent of the second amendment was for your neighbor to own and openly carry whatever firearm he wants. You might read it that way, but I will disagree until the cows come home.
It says "shall not be infringed". That's pretty much
This is essentially why the language is what it is. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is potentially the most explicit, no exceptions, means of declaring exactly the intent. The fact that you can disagree until the cows come home is called cognitive dissonance.
You are just ignoring the entire rest of the quote. If it said "the right to take a shit shall not be infringed," it means that you cannot infringe upon taking a shit. The second amendment says NOTHING about open carry (or even the right for anyone to carry guns for purposes other than keeping a militia), so no one's right is being infringed by prohibiting it. The fact that you think open carry is included in the amendment is called cognitive ignorance.
20 times? How much higher than the violence rate over all? How does our murder and rape rate compare to other countries? Where do you get your data? I would assume that it would be 1000 times higher since most "developed" countries don't have the basic freedoms that Americans have (to own guns) Are you referring to European countries?
I would that more law abiding honorable citizens carried guns and were willing to use them to protect the innocent against
criminals and mentally ill psychopaths.
One of the intents of the second amendment was to raise an army against an aggressor, but also to protect our own government from being tyrannical. You're right, the founders never intended for us to keep a large standing army, and would probably disagree with us keeping one now. A big reason why is they wanted us to stay out of the affairs of Europe, because they knew it would pull us into war.
You're willing to bring up what the framers were intending when it fits your argument, but totally ignore their opinions when it doesn't. The framers did want Americans to have the right to bear arms. The framers themselves carried concealed firearms. The framers feared a government that disarmed its populace. The framers were more than ok with anyone owning 20 guns, because many of them owned many guns.
I provided a link earlier in the thread with direct quotes from the framers on why they felt the 2nd amendment was important. I provided another link that interpreted the linguistics of the time. Feel free to read them and do a lot more research on why their direct quotes matter when they support your argument, are useless when they don't support your argument.
You're just seeing what you want to see. The 2nd amendment isn't personally important to you, just like how some ppl choose not to vote and others are ok with Uncle Sam snooping around their/your email. So if it just goes away, or other laws are created that make gun ownership all but impossible and/or too expensive, as many states/cites have done, you're ok with it. After all, it doesn't really affect you personally and you think the amendment is outdated or needs to be "reinterpreted" for modern times. In short, no matter what opinions the framers had when drafting the amendment, you feel it's outdated.
The problem that I have with your opinions on guns and gun ownership is that you really do feel you're "letting" me have a right, or at least enough of it that I shouldn't complain. If I have just one musket, it's a gun, right? You're not "for" complete criminalization of gun ownership, but you're ok with many obstacles to gun ownership, or at least turn a blind eye to the many states and cities that have created those obstacles (Chicago, DC, NJ, CA, etc.). You're aghast at the willingness of red states to create laws you feel are unconstitutional towards the LGBT community, yet you, and many on the left, ignore the 2nd amendment for what it is and what it was meant to be. It's easy because you don't like guns, and you especially don't like the people who like guns (very fair statement based on how you describe gun owners).
Yes, the NRA goes to far sometimes, even in my opinion. But so does the ACLU.
If you want to rewrite the Constitution, there are clear ways of doing that. Your willingness to "reinterpret" the Constitution, or just ignore the parts you don't like, will come back and bite you and every other person in this country some day.
There is no possible way to bold, capitalize or over state this part of his post. It is what will ultimately end our nation as we know it if we continue on this path. There is a process by which we can change how we do things. We completely ignore this process because it is hard. Has it ever occurred to anyone that it's hard for a reason? Instead, we take to executive action, way out of bounds court rulings and creative ideas for circumventing the Constitutional process. It's all destructive and it is all wrong. One need look no further than the popular vote compact to see how dangerous this is. The unfortunate reality is that in most cases, it is one political sphere leading the way here. We have to stop...
We need to make arguments, win arguments and then vote for change. That's how it's supposed to work. What we're doing now only leads to one place.
I am reading the text exactly as it says in the constitution. I have already mentioned why I think the 2nd amendment can still allow for restrictions. You bring up the LBGT issue...section 1 of the 14th amendment expilictly says "or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." if you choose to read it differently, that is your deal.
I'm not sure which side you're arguing for but NYC's per capita gun violence is very low and has gone down substantially since those gun laws were enacted.
Of course there's going to be a higher number of incidents compared to a small city but you can't just exclude a major city like NY whether it correctly fits your argument or not.
I'm sure that the pro-gun crowd on here will find fault with this info but here goes nothing:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/
@Willence and @muddy05tiger I have a proposition, wonder if you accept it:
1. Background checks on ALL gun sales
2. 7 day waiting period
3. No semi-automatic rifles
In exchange:
1. No abortions past 20 weeks except in the case of health of the mother.
If you were in charge, would you take that deal? If not, how would you change it? Obviously, there still needs to be a compromise in place. You can't just say eliminate all the gun parts and leave the abortion part.
Anyone that wants to create a gun crime will get their hands on a gun even if they have to wait 7 days if it is premeditated. If someone is mentally ill and damned and determined to kill, if they cannot get their hands on a gun they will do it with another weapon that is more easily accessible. Guns are not hard to find on the secondary market and no matter what sort of gun laws you put into place they will continue to not be hard to find. Just like drugs...want them...they aren't hard to find.
Let's not fool ourselves and pretend making it harder for law abiding citizens is going to all of the sudden make bad people good. Gun free zones are the least safe areas imaginable and the easiest targets for the crazies. Mackey sure as hell did not have trouble finding a gun the other week and he had a violent history.
SC has a process to purchase a gun now and if you get your concealed weapons permit you can bypass that process. But you do not think someone who wants a gun today can find a gun with a few phone calls. I could have my hands on just about any type of gun I wanted in just a matter of minutes. The only thing that will change is there will be less guns registered and more purchased on the secondary market
Let's not fool ourselves and pretend making it harder for law abiding citizens is going to all of the sudden make bad people good. Gun free zones are the least safe areas imaginable and the easiest targets for the crazies. Mackey sure as hell did not have trouble finding a gun the other week and he had a violent history.
SC has a process to purchase a gun now and if you get your concealed weapons permit you can bypass that process. But you do not think someone who wants a gun today can find a gun with a few phone calls. I could have my hands on just about any type of gun I wanted in just a matter of minutes. The only thing that will change is there will be less guns registered and more purchased on the secondary market
This is exactly the backwards thinking that is never going to get us anywhere. I can tell you right now, if I really wanted to buy a gun to hurt somebody, I would have no idea where to get my hands on one except to go to a pawnshop or a gun store. Yes, I could go out of my way to try to find a criminal yada yada yada, but it's not nearly as simple as it is right now where I can go in to moneyman pawn and get my hands on a gun within minutes. And if I were forced to wait seven days before I could get that done, maybe I would rethink my decision.
I'm sorry, your argument holds no weight.
So you give us 3 items but only one for yourself? The one item even has a disqualified.
1. I'm not a big fan of background checks on all sales. It means I have to sell to a dealer, or would have to go through a service to acquire the check. I would think I would also be held liable that credentials presented by the buyer are legit. I also have yet to see any hard facts/numbers about guns used in the gun show loophole. I would be in favor of much tougher laws on straw purchases, however. Also, I think you would need a national registry to make this effective, because you currently have no clue what guns I have now.
2. We've had the "crime of passion" discussion already. I think waiting periods are completely useless. A "crime of passion" is only committed in that moment. If you have time to go buy a gun, even if it just takes an hour, it's murder.
3. Many semi-auto rifles are used for hunting. They don't even have a detachable magazine and have a relatively low capacity. Ideas like this one are what worries gun owners, and also makes us do a bit of a face palm. I get a desire for an assault weapons ban. The problem with the ban is assault weapons are used for such a miniscule amount of gun violence. And again, the second amendment wasn't written for my right to hunt; it was written for my protection. That's a fact whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
I'd be for:
1. Much tougher laws on straw purchases.
2. Some inclusion of domestic abuse (even misdemeanor) and mental health into background checks. Perhaps there's just a simple flag that doesn't say why the individual is flagged.
Forget the abortion.
Before the first assault weapon ban, they accounted for 2% of all gun violence. I think it's kind stating your measures combined would decrease gun violence by 5%. The Left States we need to do "something", so this is something. But what are you going to do about the other 95%? Are you telling me the first 5% is enough?
That's what scares me and other fun owners. I honestly don't care for open carry. But I also realize open carry (or concealed carry) hasn't led to " blood in the streets". The gun-toting redneck isn't the reason for this country's gun violence problem; it's gang violence and mental health.
If you know any one who is a gun owner who enjoys hunting, shooting, or collecting a simple phone call and you can find one. And even at a pawn shop you have to go through background check if no concealed
I don't personally drugs and don't have a close personal friend that uses anything beyond weed. But do they exist and could I get my hands on hard drugs by the end of the day if I desired? Yes.
Of all the things you lay out as a "compromise," what percentage of gun deaths do you hope to curb? If your ideas are such a huge help and "make sense," tell me a fair percentage.
Because if it's the now typical, vague "at least it's something," I feel your true end is even more prohibition of firearms. In other words, I think you feel it's just a progression to something more stringent.
I laid out why I didn't like the choices you gave as fairly and descriptively as time would allow today. If my answers make you want to take your ball and go home, so be it. It's not like you laid out a compromise or what laws you're comfortable with being permanent, meaning you'd never ask for more and more down the line.
Because if it's the now typical, vague "at least it's something," I feel your true end is even more prohibition of firearms. In other words, I think you feel it's just a progression to something more stringent.
I laid out why I didn't like the choices you gave as fairly and descriptively as time would allow today. If my answers make you want to take your ball and go home, so be it. It's not like you laid out a compromise or what laws you're comfortable with being permanent, meaning you'd never ask for more and more down the line.
No. It would have to be 12 weeks and the mom would have to speak to adoption and pregnancy help folks plus see an ultrasound before deciding. I'm not saying abandon women in these tough situations. I'm saying help them get through it and protect the life of the baby always.
We could do your 1-3 and the shootings would go down 0% and may even go up. Do you want to limit guns or save lives man? I'm interested in saving people's lives.
You are correct that gun violence in NYC was very low compared to other big cities. Part was due to things that are no longer in effect with how the city was policed. Since then, gun violence in NYC has picked up considerably. Effective policing can help a ton. A lot of our big cities are huge and as such, they are much harder to police. Gun laws aren't why it works but you are welcome to think whatever you like. If it were the gun laws, it'd work everywhere like that. It doesn't so "go fish."
The reason gun laws are ineffective now is because if you cant buy it in NYC, you can go 30 minutes away to Connecticut. If the entire country had the same laws in effect, it would be a different story.No. It would have to be 12 weeks and the mom would have to speak to adoption and pregnancy help folks plus see an ultrasound before deciding. I'm not saying abandon women in these tough situations. I'm saying help them get through it and protect the life of the baby always.
We could do your 1-3 and the shootings would go down 0% and may even go up. Do you want to limit guns or save lives man? I'm interested in saving people's lives.
And I like that you are at least willing to compromise. This is how dialogue happens.
I'm not big on all the background checks, waiting periods, etc. I tend to fall on the side that firearms over a certain level should require a training course to use and keep. I don't like the government have any kind of registry of what guns people own and where they are. You probably think I'm crazy but I do not trust the government even a little bit. They have done nothing to earn our trust. Government is ultimately a necessary evil but it is still an evil. How we've allowed it to grow this way is a source of great alarm. We never seem to grasp the power and freedom we are surrendering to the boot heel of others.
Similar threads
