Gun Control & 2nd Amendment

Agreed, I just don't think you need a sub-machine or fully automatic weapon to protect you or your family. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right and should be protected. The right to bear an uzi is not. The constitution does not place restrictions on gun control. Gun control (controlling what weapons should and should not be legal and allowing the registration of weapons) is fully within the pervue of the federal and state governments.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Registration of ALL purchased/traded guns (including those bought at gun shows and online), illegalize all fully-automatic guns accept manuals and sem-automatics to the general public (exceptions made for registered collectors w/ no criminal history - automatic weapons would be permanently disabled). Limit stockpiles of ammunition and weapons (which should be pretty easy if all legal guns are registered). 3 day cool off period before issuing. All weapons will be serialized and registration will use a central federal database accessible by state and federal law enforcement personnel.Really how difficult can this be? Will this take all weapons out of criminal hands? Of course not but it will alow us to trace their weapons and thus activities easier. Yes, there will still be a blackmarket but it will be harder for these weapons to remain covert and out of the mandated federal registration system. Will this restrict in any way for people to defend themselves or use weapons for recreational activities. No.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Than I have no gripe. I think what probably needs to be done is standardize the gun control system already in place in most states i.e. federal gun control standardization. This way there are no loopholes between state gun control laws. I understand this aspect of the debate and agree. Agreed. The purpose of gun control is to make armed crimes and crimes of passion involving guns more difficult whether it be a first offense or a continuous offense. Any intelligent person realizes that it is impossible to elimate both entirely. The purpose is just to make it as difficult as possible for the criminal and make it as easy as possible for law enforcement to trace these weapons. Unfortunately the average law abiding citizen is caught in the middle of this gun control dilemna.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Not a problem. I see no reason why we can't discuss this issue rationally. Federally standardized, state enforced IMHO. Loopholes tend to occur when one state abides by a standard and another does not. Yes, but it varies from state to state. I have no problem with differing state regulations as long as any loopholes are closed. Federal regulation eliminates this problem. However, I know many have a heart ache with federal oversight vice that of the states. To me it makes no difference as long as the end result is the same. I realized this when I responded but you did not ask me what stricter gun laws I wanted to implement you asked me: So I took that to mean terms and specific means of control of guns, current and/or proposed, not just proposed gun control laws that I would like implemented in the future. When did I say I was not satisfied with current means of control? I think that the current legislation on gun control is pretty adequate but that we just need to more effectively enforce these laws and standardize them nationally so there are no loopholes. This is remarkable for someone who regularly uses weapons both on and off duty to want to abolish gun ownership. Sounds like you are someone looking for a fight without knowing who your opponent is. If you are talking about someone else i.e. anti-gun advocates, disregard what I just said. I am not anti-gun. I am pro gun rights within certain limitations and pro-gun control. This is not an either-or dilemna. Agreed.BTW, even though I support the 2nd ammendment, I do think the world would be better off without any weapons. However, I am not stupid and unrealistic enough to think that this will ever happen or that total pacificism is the answer to all the worlds problems. We have opened pandoras box and it is impossible to put the demons back in. The only solution is to regulate the weapons we currently have and continue to produce. This is also one of the reasons I believe in a just law enforcement and military system. Someone has to take care of the bad guys out there and good, moral people need to be in these organizations.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Not all federal or state laws and regulations require a constitutional amendment. No one is taking away the right to bear arms guaranteed in the 2nd amendment. Therefore no constitutional amendment is needed. Amendments are only required when the US Constitution itself or other Constitutional Amendments needs to be modified.Regulation is required for gun control otherwise every joe blow could own a bazooka or a sub-machine gun if they wanted to. I don't think the framers of the US Constitution had these weapons in mind when they drafted the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Regulation and registration of weapons is not a removal of rights guaranteed in the 2nd Amendement. If you think it is, show me how.Do we not regulate other rights and freedoms granted in the US Constitution i.e. free speach, freedom of religion, freedom of press, etc? One cannot sacrifice animals to Baal on Time Square or give a 30 minute monologue in the national or state capitol rotundum. It is by the will of the people through elected representatives that we determine how much regulation aka restrictions need to be in place. The same is true for gun rights.Furthermore the US Constitution states the following in Article VI, Clause 2:"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."Thus granting the federal government the power to govern (including regulation of various mandates and rights).This power is supplemented with the 10th Amendment which grants powers to the states which are not explicitely outlined in the US Constitution or granted to the federal government.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

No. Nor does there need to be one to regulate gun manufacturing, purchasing, or registration. Is there a amendment to the first amendment telling people they cannot sacrifice animals for religious reasons? How about a amendment saying people cannot practice there freedom of speach in federal or state buildings i.e. one cannot give a 30 minute monologue in the rotunda of the US or State Capitol building.Again regulation of guns is not an infringement of rights.Definition of regulation: "controlling human or societal behaviour by rules or restrictions."Definition of infringement: "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another".Regulation does not equal infringement of rights. Regulation is applying common sense limitations to these rights.Just as freedom of speach and freedom of religion does not mean you can do whatever the heck you want without regard to common decency and the rights of others, so to does the freedom to bear arms does not mean you can carry any weapon you desire i.e. bazooka, uzi, samurai sword, lance, throwing knives, flame thrower, crossbow or M1 Abrams tank and use them in any manner you see fit. ICANT, no one is changing any provisions in the second ammendemnt. Gun regulation is placing restrictions on what weapons can be bought, sold, carried or used by the general public. No one is saying you can't have any weapons at all. The 2nd Ammendement says nothing about what weapons you can or cannot have. All it says is that people have the right to "bear arms" and this right cannot be infringed i.e. impeded. Understand the context at the time was to specify that the government could not take away the right for the general public to defend themselves as the British did to the American colonialists by removing there ability to form militias and in some cases raiding there houses and taking away there weapons. That is the context of the reasoining behind this amendment.The 2nd Amendment says nothing about guns, specifically (though historically they would be referring to the typical flintlock and later the percussion cap guns used at time) .This amendment left up to federal and state legislatures to decide as to which weapons are or are not acceptable and the manner in which these weapons could be used aka gun control/regulation.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

No, but the Supreme Court can interpret the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights based on the historical and present day context and understanding of fundamental human rights. And the Legislative branch can pass laws that regulate how these rights are practiced as long as these underlying rights are not fundamentally violated.The rights of one cannot overshadow the rights of another at the expence of both an individual and society at large. There is always a balancing act between the needs and rights of the individual and that of the entire society.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Yes, but this has never taken place. Basically there are two ways of amending the US Constitution, either at least 3/4 of all the state legislatures through a special Constitutional Convention accept an amendment proposal without going through the US Congress for approval or 3/4 of both houses of Congress agree upon an amendment proposal which then gets is radified when 3/4 of all the state legislative bodies accept it. However, none of the current amendments to the US Constitution have been passed using a special convening of 3/4 of state legislatures. They all have used the second approach. Not to say they can't but it is highly unlikely unless there is a serious breakdown in the federal legislative system or breach of trust between the national and state level.Here is a good link that spells all this out: Constitutional AmendmentsOf course, that is a given. Through public elections the people have power over all branches of government. If we have a shitty government it is our own damn fault for voting them into office and not upsetting the status quo. Reform has to start at the grassroots level and work its way up. Not the other way around.If you don't like our government either:
a. start or join a grassroots movement to change our government (legally) or
b. run for public office So have I

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

another Waco, TX guaranteed to happen. Does this surprise me from the region of the Matthew Shepard incident? Not really.Why don't you just secede and see how long you can exist without financial aid from the US Federal government or interstate commerce.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

What is interesting is that almost all of these same idiots who protest and advocate for no restrictions/regulations on weapons, no health care reform, no or little income tax, etc have no problems taking social security, medicare/medicaid, food stamps, welfare, unemployment and many other substities and aid from the federal government.What a crock of shit. Bunch of hypocrites. Put your money where your mouth is and back up your stupid rhetoric with actions i.e. refuse to accept social security or any other federal aid. You will also have to remove your kids from public schools (because most recieve federal aid) and basically live off of the land. Do that and you might, just might have some credibility.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Show me a group of protesters who vow to refuse to take any type of federal aid of any sort i.e. social security, medicare/medicaid, food stamps, etc, etc.Are you saying that you will refuse to collect social security when the time comes?The only people who don't accept social security are the filthy rich who don't need it. I have yet to meet a middle class or lower class income earner who either states that they will never apply for social security or who have done so. There may be some out there but they are few and far between the average American citizen.If you can show me a group who actively state they refuse all forms of federal aid, I will recant my statement.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

LOL, you always give me a chuckle CS.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

No one is forcing you to live here. Also there are certain legal ways to cop out of the SS tax. I believe there are some religious ways of doing this i.e. religious conciecious objectors. Again, if you detest our socialist, welfare country, why do you live here? No one is forcing you to live here.Of course there are very few countries, if any, that do not tax there people. All tax is a form of redistribution of wealth.You complain about the system and yet you take full advantage of ths "wealth distributing" system you complain about. That is epitome of hypocracy.BTW, we have been "redistributing wealth" in one form or another since the birth of this country i.e. embargo tax, sales tax, etc. Our economic system is a tenuous balance of capitolistic and socialistic economic systems. Either one taken to the extreme is bad i.e. extreme capitolism can result in monopolies and unfair lobbying by huge corporations which can drive costs up exponentially, extreme socialism is communism which strips rights away from the individual and saps away personal inovation and the drive to succeeed. And how are you going to go about doing this? True, but all ammendments to date have been started in the US legislature. That was my point. More power to you.The United States has the second highest median household income levels in the world only second to Switzerland. We REALLY should have nothing to complain about. Seriously stop being such a wank. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

BTW, why do you think state government is so much better than federal government, as you so repititiously keep point out.It is all about the balance of power. The federal government actually IS in a nutshell, the voice of the majority or consensus of the 50 states speaking as one. The people in the STATES elect representatives to both houses of the US Congress. Power is therefore shared by the states in the form of the federal government. In other words the US Congress expresses the will of the STATES, or more accurately the People of the States. Every 4 years the people choose who they want to represent them. If they don't like what their representatives are doing than it is there own damn fault for electing them. Our governement is the most democratic, balanced and has the most checks and balances than nearly any country in the world.I think the framers of the US Consitution had in mind to keep the state governmental system as a set of checks and balances and to ensure that as the country grew our government could grow to be able to handle a larger number of people.They also were progressives (what you call liberal) for the time and proposed new, radical agendas advocating human rights never before put into action.They knew that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights was not the end of the legistlation and enforecement of inalienable and equal human rights but just the beginning or else the abolition of slavery and human rights would never have come to fruition.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Wrong You ever here something called "freedom of speach". It is not illegal to give your interpretation or opinion of a legislation. So why is it ok for you to give your opinion and advise about the Health Care Bill but it is illegal for Rhavin to express concern about the Wyoming Gun laws?? Pot calling kettle black much?It is only illegal to give legal 'advise' if you are doing it pretending to be a lawyer which Rhavin clearly has not done. Also it is illegal if someone is paying you for it unless you are lawyer which again Rhavin has not done. Here is a link that explains this well: What distinguishes 'legal advice' from 'legal information'?I have to agree with Rhavin, you are one fry short of a happy meal.Again, the problem with the Wyoming law is that is clearly in violation of federal law. Federal law is the law of the land and the state law's cannot ursurp it (though they do have ways of changing/updating/repealing federal laws i.e. Constitutional Amendments). Again read Article 6 of the Constitution: This of course has to be balanced with the 10th Amendment, in giving the states the freedom to create there own laws which are not in direct violation with federal law. There is a balance between the two. A set of checks and balances which allow both to keep each other in check so the federal government cannot overrule the consensus of the MAJORITY of State governments and at the same time one STATE government (cough, Wyoming) cannot make laws which are in clear violation of the consensus of the majority of the United States.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World