Gun Control & 2nd Amendment

I have no desire to play games. Make your point or don't.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Agreed. Which it does (the US Constitution grants authority to make laws binding on all states). Agreed. Which the Supreme court does. Following precedents is not necessarily a bad thing as long as it does not clearly violate the Constitution.Can you give me an example where you think the US SC has done this?Also be aware at any time the SC can reverse precedents and it has done so in the past i.e. Civil Rights laws, etc.The issue is that the US Constitution is only 6 pages long (including the Bill of Rights but not later Constitutional amendments). Do you really think the US Constitution, infinitesimally small compared with modern legislation, can adequately address ALL the hypothetical legal, economic, cultural, religious, health, welfare, and other concerns of a complex government system with three branches, 50 states, 2.7 million federal employees, tens of thousand of federal offices and a population of over 350 million people. I think not.The US Constitution laid the framework for our society and we should try to judge all legislation in the SPIRIT and PURPOSE of the of the US Constitution but there is no way that ALL legislation can be adequately determined to be acceptable or unacceptable solely on whether the US Constitution specifically and adequately addresses all the concerns about the legislation within its 6 pages. This is why we have the Supreme Court in order to help fill in the gaps and use there experience and objectivity to determine if legislation fits the SPIRIT and PURPOSE of the US Constitution and its amendments. The real question is how they go about doing this. I am sorry ICANT, but that is about the most idiotic thing I have heard you say. You think McCarthyism was good? How about the Jim Crow laws? Segregation was awesome wasn't it! Yeah, lets go back to the 50s when WASP males ran the country and women were kept in the kitchen and blacks in the ghetto and serving our food. What a joyous time. I work for the Federal government so I am already a slave Yeah all those people in prison for owning a deep fat fryer really make me upset. When was the last time you got arrested for eating a big mac? All those evil doctors wanting us to eat healthy and extend our life expectancy (average life expectancy increase of 10 years from 1950, over 30 years from 1900). And we do not do this right now with car insurance? Why is car insurance more important than health insurance?Actually you can opt-out of the mandated health care plan by being a religious consciences objector.BTW, I have no choice of what health care I use either, join the club 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

Even though I as the communicator am responsible for as cogently as is in my power to relay to the receiver an accurate meaning of my message, there are often times when such is missed. The is due mainly to differences in experience, acculturation, chemistry and synaptic connection.Though for the most part my message was adequately relayed to the preponderance of the forum you perceived something else.If you perceive that I am deficient in my understanding of history vis-a-vis the term redcoat or that I am simply stupid, then so be it. I cannot be responsible for all readers' perceptions.

So? Yes, that is the way things currently are. But the inappropriate gun users are the ones who are using their illegal guns illegally. What kind of new laws would help if the inappropriate users aren't following the laws? There already are reasonable regulations and laws. But yeah, some people break them. Do you think piling up more laws is a better solution than better inforcing the current ones? For everything or just gun laws? And how much is too much?Some disparity is necessary as not all states are the same. The moutainmen in rural Montana don't need the same regulation as thugs in urban New Jersey. Are you advocating as much regulation as possible while maintianing the minimum requirement of the amendment? Perhaps, but the Supreme Court ruled in DC vs Heller that the second amendment was an individual right of the People, as in you and me. I have the right to Self Defense. Didn't the Supreme Court rule otherwise? That it IS an individual right. What's inappropriate for one state can be appropriate for another. I'm not seeing a need for Federal regulation yet. And that's how things are.

Nope.The appropriate means would be those deemed legal by the courts n'stuff.

Their only purpose for writing the right to bear arms is for protection, RAZD. Do you honestly believe the spirit of the right is just to have them? Wholeheartedly agreed. It all depends on the circumstances, such as it is most anything else in life. Would it make more sense to blame the offenders rather than the inanimate gun which has no willpower of its own? Where guns are disallowed, murder by other weapons such as knives increase. The problem is the human condition, not the (in)accessability of guns.That proof is well-established where the murder rate is through the roof (Russia, Mexico) but places where guns are abundantly prevelant (Switzerland, Saudi Arabia) the homicide rate is low.One has nothing to do with the other, and any suggestion that they do is disingenuous. The homicide rate has everything to do with social aspects, not inanimate objects. There already are a plethora of regulations and laws. The strict gun control lobby keeps saying this, see that new laws are passed, and then say there needs to be even more regulation. Rarely do they specify what kind of new regulations and laws they want passed. One can only assume that if they don't have anything specific in mind, "gun control" is really just code for "I hate guns and want to get rid of them."What kinds of laws and regulations (that don't already exist) would you seek to legislate? Please be specific. Or if you feel like being perfectly honest, do you just want to repeal the 2nd amendment altogether? What purpose is there to even have states? Do you know why the Framers opted to have states as opposed to 100% federalization? If only the militia was expressed, there would not have been the right of the People included. If you are to look at it in context (which is highly advisable) you will see the Framers intent was to grant the People the right to keep and bear arms, but also within that body, to have a militia who are well-trained and disciplined.That the SCOTUS continually agrees in numerous separate cases that peaceable men should be allowed the right to keep and arms, serves to invalidate your very narrow premise. This is a raping of what this means. So, we have to acquiesce in the face of tyranny so that your assailant, who is trying to kill you, gets his right to a trial? "Taking the law in to your own hands?" Would we be taking the laws in to our own hands by assaulting someone who was asaulting your 7-year old daughter or infant son?I agree that all assailants should have a right to a fair trial, but some times the circumstances do not permit that based on the assailants actions. The police some times have to kill an assailant before he is brought to trial. That shit happens some times.He, just like a civilian who has to kill (kill or be killed), will have to justify their actions in a court of law. The way you are making it sound is we are not allowed to make snap decisions when the threat of life is imminent. Imminent means, you don't have time to sit down with the assailant and have a cup of tea with them. Be realistic. The same way it does with any law. Don't be so melodramatic. We just want what is sensible and what is afforded by the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less. To you, stopping a killer in your own house is considered vigilantism, so what you think has no objective basis in reality. As for the Framers, please refer to the myriad of quotes I provided. No one is advocating vigilantism, they are offering self-protection. The problem is that you view self-protection and vigilantism as being analagous.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Hi Hydroglyphx,Please answer Message 110

---

Hi Da, Well I am sorry but I don't believe all the propaganda that is put out by our government and the media.I don't know what part of America you lived in, in the 40's and 50's but I would dare say you were not a twinkle in the eye of your parents.After the war was over things were tough in the area I lived in. But we all survived without big brother supplying our needs. The government did not supply our food, healthcare, or anything we needed to survive. We worked for everything we had.I lived on a farm and worked on many farms. There was black and white working side by side. Each got paid the same amount of money. We went to the same Churches. We visited in each others homes in other words we were friends.In fact in the 50's I employed a couple of the ladies that had washed my clothes when I was a little boy. They helped take care of my kids. Later I started doing construction work and moved all over the state of Florida. When I went home on the weekends I had to visit those ladies so they could see the boys and know how they were doing. If I missed them they were very upset and felt I did not love them anymore. Many of my uncles and aunts could care less if I visited them.In our area we knew nothing of racial problems until it broke on the national scene.The government did not tell us what to eat or what to buy. They sure did not tell us if we did not buy a certain product they would fine us."McCarthyism." Do you believe there were no people in the US in the 50's that had communist or Marxists beliefs? Those and their offspring are the one promoting those ideas in America today."Jim Crow laws." Weren't these laws put in effect in the 1800's not in the 1900's?"Segregation was awesome wasn't it!" You don't think we have segregation today. Listen to the statements of Rev. Wright."women were kept in the kitchen." What is wrong with the woman in a marriage staying home and taking care of the home and children? What is wrong with the man being a man and providing a living for his family?"blacks in the ghetto." Do you believe there are no getto's today?
Do you believe that those who have worked hard all there life are responsible for those white and black living in poverty?
Do you believe the government should take their hard earned money and give it to those that set around and never try to better themselves?All mankind is created with equal opportunities.All men are not created equal if we were we would all be as rich as Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. If I ever eat a big mac they might. I don't eat food prepared by people other than my wife, or by myself. When we have food at Church I eat what we prepare. Unless the first ruleing violated the Constitution. Interpertation of amendment XIV, and relavant rulings, which told the States they could not pass certain laws. If the Constitution is not sufficient to address a problem there is a way to fix it. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to fix the Constitution. They only have the right to examine what is written down and determine if something matches what is written not what they think is written.They could suggest to the President or Congress that the Constitution needed amending. The Congress could then suggest amendments to fix any problem. Then if 3/4's of the States ratified the amendments they would become law.The problem is they want to do things that the States would not ratify in a Constitutional amendment. So they interpet the Constitution rather than follow the Constitution.That brings us to the Second Amendment and the Constitution.They try to figure out all kinds of ways to control gun ownership without asking the States for aproval which they would not get. So the government trys to use the commerce law to get their authority which flys in the face of a statement that the government can not restrict the citizens of owning and bearing arms.I think our forefathers intended for the citizens and States to have any arms that the federal government could posess in case they tried to put the people under a rule like they came out from under in England.The citizens would be at a disadvantage if all they had was pickup trucks, shotguns and other small arms to go against an organized army that had tanks and bombs.You say that could never happen in America. Are you sure it could not happen?Remember absolute power corrupts absolutely.If you don't think so visit Cuba. Or visit a gentleman that lives in Miami who was second in command to Raul in the 80's and 90's in Cuba. I could introduce you if you desired. He was there when Castro took over in the late 50's and saw what absolute power could do.If you look at Cuba you will see those in power have anything they desire. There are drug stores that visitors can buy aspirn in. But the local population are not allowed to enter them must less buy anything no matter how much money they have. There is a big fellow about 225 lbs over 6' tall standing at the entrance to make sure the locals do not come in the stores. They have to shop in the stores desginated for them to shop in.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."

Hi ICANT Cool, but so what? There was less freedom in those days for the citizens of the US, that's a fact. Your farm story is great, but that wasn't reality for the rest of the country. And you say you don't buy into the propaganda?What exactly is a "Marxist" belief, and what does Marx have to do with communism?Perhaps you mean Russian ideologies or something like that. Russia was not communist, in fact, there has NEVER been a communist state.Way to buy into the propaganda, ICANT. There was LEGAL segregation, ICANT. That means there was less freedom. Period.How does the opinion of that racist ass-clown matter in cases dealing with facts? Nothing, as long as it's by choice.You don't want people telling you what to do? Well, neither do women. When you said "people" you did mean to include women too, right? Question: Do you believe the people living in ghettos just sit around all day and do nothing? Do you believe they're just lazy and don't want to get out of the ghetto and are just waiting for a hand out?Careful, you may start buying into the propaganda again... WTF!!! Wow. Ok. So let me get this straight, a kid born in Darfur has the same opportunities as a kid born in a upper-middle class family in the US? Who? Then he's quite ignorant on the subject, because Cuba was under absolute power with Batista as well. The power of the wealthy. How is that different from the US, right now, today? Did YOU get a bailout, or just those with the power? Not true. At all. Over there, just like here, money buys you anything. They are not allowed to enter to spend Cuban dollars, but for American dollars, shit, come on in! Exactly that weight and height? He looked 6'3" about 250 to me last I was there. Not true. They have to shop in stores designated for Cuban dollars.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I'm really not seeing the objection with P&T other than perhaps contrasting the militia and people too much. Obviously the militia and people are interchangeable.They aren't saying the militia is the British, they are saying the reason the people have a right to bear arms is because of them.Now on to bigger and better things in Message 201

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Just bopping around EvC I ran across this post and was appallled at your lack of knowledge of the Communist and Marxist influence in this country. You should read David Horowitz's autobiography Radical Son to find out about a man whose parents were active American Communists in the thirties who went out every day distributing their propaganda. You wouldn't like him, he's now a conservative, but his story makes it clear there definitely has been a real Marxist influence in this country. You're one of its products.Horowitz was just one of thousands of what were called "red diaper babies" born in that generation who grew up to become the core of the Sixties' political radicals who led the Marxist Revolution of that time. Where do you think the loud anti-McCarthy stuff came from? McCarthy may not have gone about it right, I don't think he did, but he was right about the Communist influence. That's my generation and I knew a lot of them.You could also read the writings of the Cultural Marxists or Freudian Marxists who were very big on the campuses in those days, basically all about taking down the Christian traditions of the West in favor of Marxist ideas. They sent out a whole generation of Marxists to teach in the schools and we now have two or three generations raised on their propaganda instead of the principles of the American founding. I wasn't a Christian in those days and had mostly liberal friends, but I could see that the radical movement was anti-American in some fundamental way even then. Or at least feel it. It was prone to violence and scorn of simple people.Otherwise I may agree with some of your opinions in your post more or less. I don't think government should take care of people -- their job is to keep things running for all of us, not take taxes from some of us to support others of us. But I also think conservatives think too highly of their work ethic and personal success -- yes they earned it the hard way and they should have a right to do with it as they please in my opinion -- but they also often have a self-congratulatory attitude which leads them to sneer at the unfortunate. I don't believe in government welfare but I do believe in what the Bible teaches about earning money if you can to help others who can't. It should all be voluntary. I'm sure if conservatives followed that teaching we would never have had a movement for the government to steal their hard earned money from them against their will.As for the 2nd Amendment, it's necessary for freedom in this fallen world, it really is. As a Christian I don't think Christians should use violence of any sort for any reason though. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I was just a kid at the time. but I am sure I would have remembered a revolution. Really? really? Who are "they"? What is this propaganda that has been taught in the schools? Yeah that works well. How much of the money the Wall Street execs stole do you think they are giving back? SO you don't believe in Social Security, Medicare medicaid, VA medical, heck the whole VA must be Marxist in your eyes. No unemployment benefits, no food stamps. You know the poor are poor because they are lazy. Are schools a form of welfare in your eyes? Who is the government stealing from? You mean taxes?I have to stop the wingnuttery in this post is just plain overwhelming.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

They called it a revolution. That word was everywhere in my college campus environment. It was a silent revolution, a revolution of ideas and values. And they won it. You've all been indoctrinated by it. The principles of the founding of America have been revised to conform to it. A total sea change. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Before this snowballs out of control, I want to remind everyone that Marxism is not the topic.Coffee House is a large place, please start a new thread if need be.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

You're right. I cease and desist.