|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control & 2nd Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Look 'em up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
On the other side of the sidewalk this may not be the case, but in Arizona and Texas (the only two of which I'm sure) any law enforcement personnel at any level within the state can be called upon by the Governor in times of "civil strife." Kinda like the Federal government nationalizing a state National Guard.
I understand your point, but I think this would constitute a militia. Edited by AZPaul3, : Added thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again AZPaul3,
... law enforcement personnel at any level within the state can be called upon by the Governor in times of "civil strife." Kinda like the Federal government nationalizing a state National Guard. Usually requiring the approval of the government agency in charge of the unit (town mayor etc), in the same way the Governors have to approve the use of the National Guard units.
I understand your point, but I think this would constitute a militia. Exactly, and they are left up to the states to regulate. Police units are even more local specific then the National Guard units, as they are usually run by counties and cities, not the states. Certainly if one wants the opportunity to be trained and use weapons of warfare, one can join the National Guard. If one wants to be trained and use weapons appropriate to fight crime one can join a police unit. If one wants to hunt one can acquire the proper license and permits. Where this issue becomes of concern to society is when people are not trained in the proper use of weapons endangering other citizens, or actually intend to use such weapons against other citizens. The constitution does not give people the authority to take the law into their own hands, even within their own house. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
he constitution does not give people the authority to take the law into their own hands, even within their own house. This is specific to the "within their own house" part. The Constitution doesn't have to give such an authority. All depending upon the circumstances of course, but if the local DA doesn't then most probably the jury would.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Certainly if one wants the opportunity to be trained and use weapons of warfare, one can join the National Guard. If one wants to be trained and use weapons appropriate to fight crime one can join a police unit. If one wants to hunt one can acquire the proper license and permits. And that is how it is, no? Granting, in some places the 'proper license and permit' equals 'nothing'.
The constitution does not give people the authority to take the law into their own hands, even within their own house.
Regardless, as AZPaul3 said, WE decide when we are justified in "taking the law into our own hands" through the appropriate means according to the particular case.
Where this issue becomes of concern to society is when people are not trained in the proper use of weapons endangering other citizens, or actually intend to use such weapons against other citizens. I understand your sentiment, but you're acting like there a whole lot of incompetent gun-owners causing a lot of big problems. I'm not seeing an issue here that is of any concern. Assuming some other local issue of concern, that doesn't necessitate a Federal action towards it. Do you see something wrong with the way things currently are?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
All depending upon the circumstances of course, but if the local DA doesn't then most probably the jury would. There are many permutations of the "castle" law. Most in the US are complete perversions of the original english common law. Every state has a different take on it and some do not have a "castle" law at all. So the dependency is not on the DA or jury, but on the law. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
WE decide when we are justified in "taking the law into our own hands" through the appropriate means according to the particular case. Just to be clear here. You are advocating that an individual has the right to determine when, where and how they should be able to shoot someone? Isn't that an advocacy of anarchy? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
There are many permutations of the "castle" law. Most in the US are complete perversions of the original english common law. Every state has a different take on it and some do not have a "castle" law at all. So the dependency is not on the DA or jury, but on the law. So true. I was thinking more of jury nullification in cases of weak or no castle law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist and AZPaul3,
And that is how it is, no? Granting, in some places the 'proper license and permit' equals 'nothing'. And that disparity causes problems between states. Now one could argue that it is a matter of interstate trade for federal oversight, but that would be pretty weak imo. The facts of the matter show that social organizations with increased regulation have fewer problems caused by gun use than social organizations with weak or non-existing regulations. This is simply a matter of numbers, as the more people have guns the higher is the probability that one will be misused.
Regardless, as AZPaul3 said, WE decide when we are justified in "taking the law into our own hands" through the appropriate means according to the particular case. Message 184: The Constitution doesn't have to give such an authority. All depending upon the circumstances of course, but if the local DA doesn't then most probably the jury would. Correct, there is no constitutional right to use a gun for a given purpose, you only have the right to bear arms, not to be judge, jury and executioner. When a gun or other weapon has been used, regardless of location, one needs to show due cause, usually involving self-protection from immanent harm. You can't just blow someone away that happens to be where you don't want them to be.
I understand your sentiment, but you're acting like there a whole lot of incompetent gun-owners causing a lot of big problems. I'm not seeing an issue here that is of any concern. And yet, curiously, it is a common argument from pro-gun people that they need to protect themselves from inappropriate gun users News stories are usually full (because of the vicarious thrill factor?) of stories about gang violence and guns, drive-by shootings etc. I certainly don't think such uses are appropriate for gun owners to engage in, and that lax gun restrictions are a contributing factor to their being a part of the news cycles. It seems that the pro-gun lobby would rather attack this problem with armed citizens rather than with reasonable regulations and laws. This of course will just make the problem worse, as this will be adding a vigilante gang to the mix.
Assuming some other local issue of concern, that doesn't necessitate a Federal action towards it. The reason the federal government would get involved is if there is too much disparity between state regulations. There are lots of instances where state laws have differences, but also reasons for overall comparable regulations, such as drivers licenses, particularly for truck and bus drivers. The question for federal involvement is where is the requirements of the constitution fulfilled with the need to form militias:
Message 43: What the The Bill of Rights actually says:
quote:The National Guard units run by the states fulfill this requirement, forming as they do form a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" (note meaning of "State" as a government body differs from the meaning of "states" as a subcategory here). As long as the states can form militia units, such as the National Guard units and like State Police forces, this clause of the constitution is fulfilled.
Message 100: For your edification here is the definition of militia:
quote: Note that these definitions can be applied to the National Guard and to State and local Police units.
Message 43: What the The Bill of Rights actually says:
quote: Note that this applies to the intruder just as much as it applies to any other person. This is part of the foundation of justice that is a good model for the world. "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ... " In other words you do not have the right to take the law into your own hands. The needs for states to be able to form militias is fulfilled with current National Guard units and State Police forces, all in accordance with the other provisions of the constitution:
Message 43: This is what the U.S. Constitution says about the armed forces and the militias:
quote: Note that these are the only places where a militia is mentioned in the constitution or amendments and that the "Militia of the several States" are clearly units run by the states (ie - the National Guard), and that "organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia" are responsibilities for congress while the "Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia" are reserved for the States, so this clearly does not apply to any ad hoc organizations of gun happy citizens. These clauses are clearly, imho, fulfilled with the current National Guard units and State Police forces, their training, armament and organization are all in compliance with these provisions. An ad hoc organization of gun happy citizens bent on vigilante justice does not meet this criteria, and thus their "right" to bear arms in such a situation is not protected by the constitution, but
Do you see something wrong with the way things currently are? Where does society draw the line between what is appropriate and what is inappropriate? It seems to me that the pro-gun lobby would be happy to have guns de-regulated to the point where the american-taliban-fundamentalist-zealots can arm themselves and train to kill abortion doctors and any other person they disagree with, simply because they have the right to bear arms. Personally I can't see the founding fathers approving of such a situation, likewise law has always taken a dim view of vigilante justice, and all of this shows that there are rational reasons for regulation of who is allowed to use what kinds of weapons when and where. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Look 'em up. LOL. Whatever. "Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Do you really not understand the term "redcoats"? Or are you trying to make some non-understandable point?
Edited by Theodoric, : forgot non Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Where does society draw the line between what is appropriate and what is inappropriate? In the congress and the courts.
It seems to me that the pro-gun lobby would be happy to have guns de-regulated to the point where the american-taliban-fundamentalist-zealots can arm themselves and train to kill abortion doctors and any other person they disagree with, simply because they have the right to bear arms. A bit of hyperbole? I do not think anyone here is saying this and I don't think a cogent reading of the NRA would support this view. No one, except the usual sociopath, is saying you have the right to shoot someone just because they flip you the bird or make foul noises. Nor is anyone saying you can shoot anyone in the privacy of your home just because they call your wife ugly. What we are saying is that, in your home, if your life or the lives of your family are threatened, then, yes, you have a right to kill the bastards. And you have a right to possess the gun to do it with. And you had better have corroborating evidence of such a threat or your butt will end up in jail. You may disagree with this, and that’s fine, but, please RAZD, don’t make more of it than it is. Edited by AZPaul3, : clarification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Do you really not understand the term "redcoats"? Or are you trying to make some non-understandable point? I am just not sure if AZPaul knows to what the term 'redcoat' refers. He certainly seems to use it as though he hasn't the slightest understanding of history. Jon "Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
His original comment was.
A citizens' militia is no longer necessary since there are considerable police forces available to keep the equivalent of "them injuns and redcoats" away. Care to explain to us that have no idea what you are trying to say? Maybe someone else gets it and can explain to me. I have no idea how what he means can even be questioned. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Let me try to phrase the question differently:
Who were the redcoats and against whom were they fighting? Jon "Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024