|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right | |||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nothing baffling about it. It is a violent society, which is why law abiding Americans want their arms. Of course, this violent obsession doesn't come by the gun, but by Hollywood's glorification of violence. Hollywood movies are shown all over the world. In fact they are impossible to ecape. My local cinema shows nothing else. I have watched (and frankly enjoyed) Hollywood movies all over the world (South america, Carribean, Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia etc. etc. etc.) In many cases Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise are more recognisable to the population of a country than the leader of it's own government!!! My own country has, arguably, one of the most violent, brutal, dictatorial and imperialist pasts of any country in the world. France would fare little better in a historical analysis. Germany's more recent violent indescretions are all too well documented. Russia? Spain? Italy? On what grounds do you claim America as inherently more violent than anywhere else?If guns and the attitudes that go with them are not the relatively unique factor then what is? It sure aint the global phenomenon that is the Hollywood blockbuster!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
In specific practical terms what are these limits? I.e what is banned and what is not at the extreme end of the spectrum? Each state has its own limitations. And even then, specific cities can have ordinances. For instance, concealed weapons permits are not allowed in Los Angeles (which really irks me, as a resident. Some states are more stringent, others not so stringent. Arizona has very lax gun laws. It is not uncommon to see someone walking down the street with a gun on their hip, whereas, in California gun laws are pretty strict.
Is there anywhere where a personal thermonuclear device would be considered acceptable? Of course not. Those are highly regulated, military devices
If not what is the most detructive weaponry allowed and in what state is this permitted? I think a .50 caliber rifle is probably the most anyone is allowed, but again, it varies from state to state. And it's not like you can just walk around with it anywhere you damn well please. There are specific transport procedures you have to follow, and you cannot just shoot it wherever either. “I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
OK
But on what rationale are the limits that are applied actually applied? What rationale is it that says handguns are obvioulsy fine but the personal ownership of napalm bombs are not? Please try to look at this from my point of view - Fire-arms to me are not an everyday object. In fact I have never held a gun or even seen one close up. The idea that they are obviously permitted to be carried is almost as bizzarre to me as someone walking around with a bazooka cannon might be to you!!! I am trying to work out what the limits of acceptability are with regard to weaponry in the US.Forget legality for one moment(as this is obviously a complex subject, with numerous nuances and multiple interpretations) In your personal opinion what constitutes the upper limit of acceptability in terms of personal weaponry and on what basis do you make this judgement? Is an armoured tank acceptable?Is a bazooka gun? Is a thermonuclear device? Is a napalm bomb? Is a machine gun? What is the limit and what is the reason/rationale for that limit? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
OK
But on what rationale are the limits that are applied actually applied? What rationale is it that says handguns are obvioulsy fine but the personal ownership of napalm bombs are not? Please try to look at this from my point of view - Fire-arms to me are not an everyday object. In fact I have never held a gun or even seen one close up. The idea that they are obviously permitted to be carried is almost as bizzarre to me as someone walking around with a bazooka cannon might be to you!!! I am trying to work out what the limits of acceptability are with regard to weaponry in the US.Forget legality for one moment(as this is obviously a complex subject, with numerous nuances and multiple interpretations) In your personal opinion what constitutes the upper limit of acceptability in terms of personal weaponry and on what basis do you make this judgement? Is an armoured tank acceptable?Is a bazooka gun? Is a thermonuclear device? Is a napalm bomb? Is a machine gun? What is the limit and what is the reason/rationale for that limit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Hollywood movies are shown all over the world. In fact they are impossible to ecape. My local cinema shows nothing else. I have watched (and frankly enjoyed) Hollywood movies all over the world (South america, Carribean, Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia etc. etc. etc.) Then you will at least see the sociological aspect, I take it. In Switzerland, one of the MOST non-violent nations on Earth, the Swiss have the third highest percentage of guns per capita on the planet. Have their rates of violence grown exponentially as a result? Certainly not. Yet somewhere like, say, your country, the violence is much higher. Yet the UK has very stringent gun laws. Why the disparity if guns are to blame? We should expect the exact opposite if there really was a correlation. In fact, Washington D.C. routinely has the most murders per capita within a US city, yet they also had a very strict ban on guns. Major cities like Phoenix, which is much more populated than D.C., enjoyed lower rates of homicide by handgun than D.C., yet Arizona is very lax on its gun laws. The point is that there is no conclusive reason to assume that gun bans stop people from being murdered, either by guns or murdered at all. If one thing can be said about humans is that if determined, they will find a way to enact their malice against another person. Look no further than prison to prove that point.
On what grounds do you claim America as inherently more violent than anywhere else? On the basis of statistics. America is a very violent nation. I simply contend that it is not because of our cherished gun laws. The United States is violent because of its culture. South Africa is violent because of its culture. Switzerland is not because of its culture. Think of it this way: Criminals by definition are people who subvert the law. What good will a gun ban do when criminals don't respect the law? Will it stop them from getting a gun? No, it won't. If they are determined to get a gun, they will get one. However, by making gun laws very strict, it greatly impacts people who would otherwise utilize a gun properly by effectively disarming them against the person who does not play by the rules. And you know, even supposing the United States stopped allowing guns altogether, it is too ingrained within us at this point. There are too many guns to even account for. Even for registered guns, imagine having sold a gun that you purchased years ago, yet since your name comes up on the system. Imagine being required to lawfully turn over the weapon, but you really don't have it. You could be jailed for hiding weapons. And what makes anyone think that Americans would quietly turn over their arms to the government? It would never happen, and the government knows it! They wouldn't dare disarm us without expecting a full on revolution as the consequence to their shredding of our Constitutional right.
If guns and the attitudes that go with them are not the relatively unique factor then what is? I couldn't begin to quantify the precise reason when, invariably, there are probably many reasons. All I know for certain is that I meet a lot of people from around the world because of my job. Everyday I meet some one from another country. And depending upon their country of origin, I can generally tell how well my reception will be. Of all the countries that I deal with in my job, guess who gives me the biggest problems? Americans... hands down... disrespectful, scornful, uncooperative, unruly, etc. That certainly does not include ALL Americans, and it certainly doesn't mean that every one I meet from another country is full of joy. But whether it is politically correct or not, stereotypes don't invent themselves. And while it is wrong to assume the worst based on those stereotypes, I don't think it is wrong to recognize their existence either. There really are complex social issues at play. And I'm willing to bet that this is the greatest reason for violence. “I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
But on what rationale are the limits that are applied actually applied? What rationale is it that says handguns are obvioulsy fine but the personal ownership of napalm bombs are not? Because the pretext of the 2nd Amendment is personal protection, not genocide.
Please try to look at this from my point of view - Fire-arms to me are not an everyday object. In fact I have never held a gun or even seen one close up. The idea that they are obviously permitted to be carried is almost as bizzarre to me as someone walking around with a bazooka cannon might be to you! Well, that makes sense to me. I can appreciate that. But you wouldn't say it was necessarily wrong because of that, would you?
In your personal opinion what constitutes the upper limit of acceptability in terms of personal weaponry and on what basis do you make this judgement? There is no need for automatic weaponry, either to hunt or to protect oneself. It therefore is not legal. Incendiary weapons of any kind serve no purpose other than to kill many people. Its use is then reserved for the military.
Is an armoured tank acceptable? Is a bazooka gun? Is a thermonuclear device? Is a napalm bomb? No, to all of these.
Is a machine gun? Yes and no. You can own an AK-47 if you want, but you cannot have a function that would allow a military version to shoot fully automatic or even a three-round burst. In essence, it has to fire one round per trigger squeeze.
What is the limit and what is the reason/rationale for that limit? To me, asking if bazooka's are legal is silly to me. It seems like common sense to me. But I understand that you are not familiar with these laws firsthand. There is gun control in the United States. Gun ownership, while a it is afforded by the Constitution, is more a privilege than it is a right -- at least that is how it is treated. If you have certain felonies, particularly violence-related felonies, you cannot legally own a gun. You lost your right. You can't purchase a weapon without a background check. You can't own a gun if you are deemed mentally ill in some states, mostly in direct connection with the Virginia Tech incident. As for your countrymen, many of them see the need for the inherent right. I think it is fantastic and hope they are allowed that right. “I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
|
|||||||||||||||||||
steeley42 Junior Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 8 From: Ohio, USA Joined: |
quote: quote: Oo, Oo, can I play the Robert Heinlein quote game too? “In these years, I’ve yet to use a gun. They just seem to be a small bit of wrong in this world.” - Robert Heinlein “A citizenry should never be armed, it only leads to violence and thinking they know what’s right.” - Robert Heinlein Stop using Heinlein quotes. He’s a novelist . Fictional books. You are not quoting Heinlein, you are quoting his characters; which may or may not embrace his own philosophy. If you are quoting the philosophy of a fictional character you must say as such or you are being philosophically dishonest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Straggler writes: This would seem to prove that ineffectual gun laws gives rise to the worst of both worlds!!!! I have been to Jamaica and, legal or otherwise, everybody has guns. No everybody in Jamaica don't have guns just the police and the crooks. Well that does cover most everybody. But there are a lot of law abiding people in Jam that do not own guns. There are a lot of people there that can't afford a gun. A 357 S&W costs around 165,000 Jamaican dollars, the last I heard. I have many friends from Jamaica as I lived in Grand Cayman for 15 years.
Straggler writes: Well if people don't have guns they cannot shoot each other is the very obvious aim here. I agree they can not shoot each other without guns. Does that stop them from killing each other, afraid not. In Jamaica over 130 per 100,000 killings occur. 66% of those are from gun shot wounds. 34% are from other weapons. 29% are from disputes of which half are committed with a knife. You can find this information Here which is 6 years old.
Straggler writes: Well define "violent crime". According to Wikipedia every country has a different definition for violent crime.
Straggler writes: Which stats show the US as having a lower rate of gun deaths than the UK? I don't think I said the UK had more gun homicides that the US.I did quote the Harvard people as saying the UK had a higher violent crime rate than the US. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
i think you are misquoting him.
i did a simple google search of heinlein quotes, and i could not find those quotes. yet you speak of dishonesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
here is DCs new gun regulation: http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=104&sid=1434809
now they are trying to classify any firearm that can shoot more than 11 rounds as machine guns. so if i use a 10 round magazine in my glock its cool, but if i use a 17 round magazine its a "machine" gun. lol what a bunch of BS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
OK But on what rationale are the limits that are applied actually applied? What rationale is it that says handguns are obvioulsy fine but the personal ownership of napalm bombs are not? not sure we shouldn't be able to own what we want, though napalm bombs have to de delivered by air, so i would think one would have to be a pilot to own napalm bombs.
In your personal opinion what constitutes the upper limit of acceptability in terms of personal weaponry and on what basis do you make this judgement? Is an armoured tank acceptable?Is a bazooka gun? Is a thermonuclear device? Is a napalm bomb? Is a machine gun? we have the right to own weapons to fight the government. a tank: yeah, though i think tanks are ill suited for the task. a bazooka: especially if the opposition has tanks, though bazooka is WWII technoloy, a shoulder fired rocket is probably better. thermonuclear device: most likely not, but if they are going to use them on us, then they should be prepared to recieve one as well. napalm bomb: again probably not, though a napalm flame thrower is a different question. this is an example of use by american civilians, in Kentucky a machine gun: definately, and not even close to the upper limit of acceptability. also from knob creek here are some stills. amerrrrriiiicaaa phuck yeah!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
quote: maybe Vermont
wikipedia writes: Vermont is notable in that it has no gun control laws aside from prohibiting counties and other localities from making their own gun control laws (preemption). The only firearm laws that apply in Vermont are federal ones.[76] The term "Vermont Carry" is used by gun rights advocates to refer to allowing citizens to carry a firearm concealed or openly without any sort of permit requirement. Vermont law does not distinguish between residents and non-residents of the state; both have the same right to carry while in Vermont. The Vermont constitution of 1777, based partly on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, guarantees certain freedoms and rights to the citizens: "XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."[77] i think it is worth noting thatVermont's violent crime is low (852 cases in 2006), though i could not find data on how many of those crimes involved firearms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
steeley42 Junior Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 8 From: Ohio, USA Joined: |
Yeah, because I'm sure every word from all 46 books and 100+ short stories he wrote are all on Google. The first quote is from Stranger in a Strange Land and the second is from If this goes on-.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
In terms of the most destructive thing you can own.
I believe in most cases the limit is in the definition of "arms" which varies but is limited in general to something a single person can physically carry. Nukes are specifically limited and regulated to the Department of Energy. Warplanes, tanks, ships, etc are not considered arms AFAIK. Similarly, you couldn't own something like a mortar setup that takes 2 people to operate even though you could likely get a carry weapon that has just as much firepower. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
give me a link or STFU
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024