Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 3256 of 5179 (746890)
01-10-2015 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3241 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 9:13 AM


Re: The state of "Arms", 1791
And the 2nd amendment doesn't "allow" for anything. It just says to not infringe on the Peoples' right to have guns.
Other laws are what disallow people from having grenade launchers. Google "destructive device".
The entire 2nd Amendment:
quote:
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.
"Arms", not "guns". And "arms" is not defined to mean guns.
Cat Sci, in message 3106, writes:
Arms were meant to be a firearm that a single individual could use.
I find that definition, although it's not in the Constitution, to be acceptable. But I don't see that that definition excludes such things as rocket powered grenade launchers. What do you think is the limit of the type of "arms" a citizen is Constitutionally allowed to "keep and bear"?
Google "destructive device".
Destructive device:
quote:
In the United States, a destructive device is a type of firearm or explosive device regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, revised by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and Gun Control Act of 1968.
Examples of destructive devices include grenades, and firearms with a bore over one half of an inch, including some semi-automatic shotguns. While current federal laws allow destructive devices, some states have banned them from transfer to civilians. In states where banned, only law enforcement officers and military personnel are allowed to possess them.
quote:
Examples of destructive devices include... firearms with a bore over one half of an inch.
50 caliber seems pretty arbitrary. Why not limit it to 22 caliber? What do YOU think is the limit of the type of "arms" a citizen is Constitutionally allowed to "keep and bear"?
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : The shame - Screwed up a quote box.

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3241 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 9:13 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3257 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2015 3:07 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 3258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2015 3:16 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3257 of 5179 (747020)
01-11-2015 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 3256 by Minnemooseus
01-10-2015 3:42 PM


Re: The state of "Arms", 1791
50 caliber seems pretty arbitrary. Why not limit it to 22 caliber? What do YOU think is the limit of the type of "arms" a citizen is Constitutionally allowed to "keep and bear"?
Arbitrary indeed when a musket has a large bore but the damage potential is close to a 22 and doesn't have an option for automatic/rapid fire.
So one could set an arbitrary limit to the damage potential of a musket in the time it takes to reload a musket.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3256 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-10-2015 3:42 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 3258 of 5179 (747022)
01-11-2015 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 3256 by Minnemooseus
01-10-2015 3:42 PM


Re: The state of "Arms", 1791
"Arms", not "guns". And "arms" is not defined to mean guns.
It means weapons. Guns are weapons.
And its a right that a person has.
They're talking about personal weapons.
It stems back to the English Bill of Rights:
quote:
no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law
I find that definition, although it's not in the Constitution, to be acceptable. But I don't see that that definition excludes such things as rocket powered grenade launchers.
It doesn't. Its not exclusionary at all.
What do you think is the limit of the type of "arms" a citizen is Constitutionally allowed to "keep and bear"?
None. The type of arms a citizen is allowed to keep and bear is not limited by the Constitution.
The Constitution doesn't even "allow" the citizens to have arms in the first place.
It identifies the existence of the right, and then says to not infringe it.
50 caliber seems pretty arbitrary. Why not limit it to 22 caliber?
Well for one, some states have wildlife that can survive a 22.
What do YOU think is the limit of the type of "arms" a citizen is Constitutionally allowed to "keep and bear"?
Honestly, the question is just nonsensical. The Constitution doesn't allow citizens to bear arms and it place no limits it the right.
You should be asking the other way: what's the limitation on civilian arms that becomes unconstitutional...
That really isn't clear now, is it?
My opinion is that the metric for the limitation of civilian arms should be the police.
The police are civilians too. Anything they are allowed to have, I should be allowed to have.
And if you want to limit me from having it, then you should limit the police from having it as well.
That should create a decent balance of interest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3256 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-10-2015 3:42 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3259 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2015 4:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 3260 by ringo, posted 01-12-2015 11:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3259 of 5179 (747025)
01-11-2015 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3258 by New Cat's Eye
01-11-2015 3:16 PM


what do police carry?
My opinion is that the metric for the limitation of civilian arms should be the police.
The police are civilians too. Anything they are allowed to have, I should be allowed to have.
And if you want to limit me from having it, then you should limit the police from having it as well.
That should create a decent balance of interest.
Curiously I can work with that. I would exclude certain special forces that would respond to drug war and SWAT teams, and I would like those to be restricted from general use.
The average police officer has a handgun. There may be a shotgun in the trunk (ie not readily accessible).

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2015 3:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 3260 of 5179 (747094)
01-12-2015 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 3258 by New Cat's Eye
01-11-2015 3:16 PM


Re: The state of "Arms", 1791
Cat's Eye writes:
My opinion is that the metric for the limitation of civilian arms should be the police.
Dillinger needed Tommy guns because the police had them, so he stole them from the police.
What about body armour? It's not an "arm", technically, but it would be handy to protect me from the police.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2015 3:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3261 by NoNukes, posted 01-12-2015 11:53 AM ringo has replied
 Message 3263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-12-2015 12:18 PM ringo has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 3261 of 5179 (747098)
01-12-2015 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 3260 by ringo
01-12-2015 11:42 AM


Re: The state of "Arms", 1791
What about body armour? It's not an "arm", technically, but it would be handy to protect me from the police.
True. However it would be a stretch to make the case that there is some constitutional protection that prevents states from regulating the sale and wearing of body armor. Does not stop some people from trying to make that argument.
No US state prevents wearing of body armor by non-felons. There are some restrictions on its use that apply to everyone.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3260 by ringo, posted 01-12-2015 11:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3262 by ringo, posted 01-12-2015 12:09 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 3264 by Straggler, posted 01-12-2015 12:22 PM NoNukes has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 3262 of 5179 (747103)
01-12-2015 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3261 by NoNukes
01-12-2015 11:53 AM


Re: The state of "Arms", 1791
NoNukes writes:
No US state prevents wearing of body armor by non-felons.
Just to be clear: Is it once-a-felon-always-a-felon? Or can you work your way up to ex-felon? If you serve your sentence for a felony, can you then wear body armour to protect you from other ex-felons?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3261 by NoNukes, posted 01-12-2015 11:53 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3272 by NoNukes, posted 01-24-2015 2:29 AM ringo has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 3263 of 5179 (747105)
01-12-2015 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3260 by ringo
01-12-2015 11:42 AM


Re: The state of "Arms", 1791
What about body armour? It's not an "arm", technically, but it would be handy to protect me from the police.
What about it? I've never thought about it.
Is it not commercially available?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3260 by ringo, posted 01-12-2015 11:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3265 by ringo, posted 01-12-2015 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(3)
Message 3264 of 5179 (747107)
01-12-2015 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3261 by NoNukes
01-12-2015 11:53 AM


Re: The state of "Arms", 1791
NN writes:
No US state prevents wearing of body armor by non-felons.
In response to recent massacres I suggest that, rather than limit gun use any further, all teachers and school children should be required to attend school in full body armour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3261 by NoNukes, posted 01-12-2015 11:53 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3267 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2015 12:48 PM Straggler has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 3265 of 5179 (747109)
01-12-2015 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 3263 by New Cat's Eye
01-12-2015 12:18 PM


Re: The state of "Arms", 1791
Cat's Eye writes:
Is it not commercially available?
Well, in Canada it would have about as much market as giraffe shoes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-12-2015 12:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3266 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-12-2015 12:33 PM ringo has replied
 Message 3268 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2015 12:50 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 3266 of 5179 (747110)
01-12-2015 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3265 by ringo
01-12-2015 12:31 PM


You guys probably don't sell a lot of beach towels either...
I'm not sure I'm getting the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3265 by ringo, posted 01-12-2015 12:31 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3269 by ringo, posted 01-13-2015 11:05 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3267 of 5179 (747114)
01-12-2015 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3264 by Straggler
01-12-2015 12:22 PM


bulletproof kids
In response to recent massacres I suggest that, rather than limit gun use any further, all teachers and school children should be required to attend school in full body armour.
There has been a market response:
bulletproof backpacks - Search
Not sure which it protects more, the child or the peace of mind of the parent ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3264 by Straggler, posted 01-12-2015 12:22 PM Straggler has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3268 of 5179 (747115)
01-12-2015 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3265 by ringo
01-12-2015 12:31 PM


'sno mobile suit
Well, in Canada it would have about as much market as giraffe shoes.
Unless it were incorporated into a snowmobile suit, eh?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3265 by ringo, posted 01-12-2015 12:31 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 3269 of 5179 (747213)
01-13-2015 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 3266 by New Cat's Eye
01-12-2015 12:33 PM


Cat's Eye writes:
You guys probably don't sell a lot of beach towels either...
We have beaches.
But the idea that there would be a demand for handguns has always been amusing to me. If they were free in CrackerJacks, a few people would have them. Otherwise, what for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3266 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-12-2015 12:33 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3270 by Theodoric, posted 01-13-2015 11:12 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 3270 of 5179 (747217)
01-13-2015 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 3269 by ringo
01-13-2015 11:05 AM


You guys have lots of beautiful beaches. I have found a number of them on secluded lakes in northern Ontario. Also a few on Lake Superior.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3269 by ringo, posted 01-13-2015 11:05 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024