Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 10:13 PM
803 online now:
edge, funny, jar, Jon, Louis Morelli, ramoss, Sarah Bellum (7 members, 796 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,976 Year: 12,012/19,786 Month: 1,793/2,641 Week: 302/708 Day: 77/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Guns
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 687 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1 of 301 (397454)
04-26-2007 12:30 AM


Here's the 2nd amendment

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.

Here's a definition of "arms"

A weapon, especially a firearm

So, from a very literally stand point, any and every firearm imaginable from a .22 to an M2 to a gatling gun should all be perfectly legal in these United States.

But, as we've seen recently, easy access to guns yields massive casualties.

Where do we draw the line?

Did the founding fathers, in the days of muzzle loaders with bad range and worse aim, honestly intend for the events of VT to happen? Remember he got his perfectly legal gun perfectly legally.

Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-26-2007 12:58 AM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-27-2007 10:10 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 6 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 1:55 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 12 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 7:44 AM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 04-28-2007 11:56 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 64 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 1:00 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-29-2007 11:34 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 252 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 5:32 PM Nuggin has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 301 (397459)
04-26-2007 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
04-26-2007 12:30 AM


We decide to draw a line someplace. Why don't we draw the line back a ways?

Where do you propose to draw that line? What are your ideals of under what conditions private citizens should be able to possess what weapons?

Added by edit: The promotion of your topic is not dependent on such, but I do suggest you edit the profanity out of your message 1 and abstain from such in the future. IMO, it only tends to make you appear irrational and/or stupid.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 04-26-2007 12:30 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 301 (397834)
04-27-2007 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
04-26-2007 12:30 AM


Bump - Potentially good topic
This theme needed to get out of that other topic.

I think I'm on your side, both the admin and non-admin modes, but as presented in your message 1, I sense a disaster area topic about to be launched.

How about some supplemental input, as per my message 2 suggestion? You can either edit your message 1 or add a new message.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 04-26-2007 12:30 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Nuggin, posted 04-27-2007 10:47 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 687 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 4 of 301 (397842)
04-27-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Adminnemooseus
04-27-2007 10:10 PM


Re: Bump - Potentially good topic
Completely changed my post, but not my opinions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-27-2007 10:10 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 301 (397846)
04-27-2007 11:25 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 4351 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 6 of 301 (397859)
04-28-2007 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
04-26-2007 12:30 AM


Oops! You're absolutely wrong!
So, from a very literally stand point, any and every firearm imaginable from a .22 to an M2 to a gatling gun should all be perfectly legal in these United States.

Yeah, true, but they aren't due to assault weapons bans that we have to keep things in check.

But, as we've seen recently, easy access to guns yields massive casualties.

This statement is extremely misleading. In New York City it's illegal for a private citizen to own a gun, right? They've got a horrible crime rate. Thus, this counterexample disproves your false generalization that allowing private citizens to own guns is the reason this stuff (Virginia Tech, etc.) happens.

Did the founding fathers, in the days of muzzle loaders with bad range and worse aim, honestly intend for the events of VT to happen? Remember he got his perfectly legal gun perfectly legally.

Begging the question. No, of course they didn't! Hate to say it, but people have been killing people millenia before the muzzle loader. In HUGE numbers.

Are you saying that, without legal access to guns, VT wouldn't have happened? That's quite a hypothetical feat, considering that people with criminal intent don't care to obey the law.

After you're done admitting that you have no solid bases for your statements, please explain what you suppose we do about this gun issue you're fabricating?

1)Do we ban them altogether, despite the fact that it won't take them out of the hands of criminals? (hint: take a look at what happened when they banned alchohol)

2)Since it is undeniable that criminals will always traffic firearms despite the laws, how do households defend themselves against criminals who have firearms, and know that the homeowners don't?

3)Yes or no, do you believe that guns cause people to kill eachother. Please answer the question 'yes or no' directly before providing a more detailed response.


I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 04-26-2007 12:30 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-28-2007 2:11 AM One_Charred_Wing has responded
 Message 16 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 12:16 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 7 of 301 (397861)
04-28-2007 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 1:55 AM


Re: Oops! You're absolutely wrong!
I am looking for a high quality discussion in this topic, and your message seems to be more heat/smoke than substance.

Let's keep the conversation nice.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 1:55 AM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 2:25 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 4351 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 8 of 301 (397864)
04-28-2007 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Adminnemooseus
04-28-2007 2:11 AM


You, on the other hand, are right.
You're right, the tone's a little condescending. I will do my very best to play nice on this one.

To explicate my schema, I am very strongly in favor of the second amendment, and from my perspective the inevitable consequences of removing it (or tacking one more restriction on) would make VT look like a drop in the bucket within weeks.


I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-28-2007 2:11 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-28-2007 2:50 AM One_Charred_Wing has responded
 Message 13 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 7:52 AM One_Charred_Wing has responded
 Message 18 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 12:18 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3730
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 9 of 301 (397866)
04-28-2007 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 2:25 AM


So, what does the 2nd amendment mean to you?
As per message 1, the 2nd amendment:

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.

My recollection (as in, I'm not going to re-research it now), is that the first part ended with a semi-colon (...free state;). I don't know if this is significant or not.

Anyway, the meaning of / relationship between the two parts is (IMO, of course) murky.

What is your opinion on the meaning of the 2nd amendment?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 2:25 AM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 2:40 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 10 of 301 (397868)
04-28-2007 3:14 AM


Militia

Dictionary.com
mi·li·tia /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

AND
militia

1590, "system of military discipline," from L. militia "military service, warfare," from miles "soldier" (see military). Sense of "citizen army" (as distinct from professional soldiers) is first recorded 1696, perhaps from Fr. milice. In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777).

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

Righteo, Americanos, kindly explain to an outsider, why the well-regulated militia section is dismissed, and individual gun ownership reigns supreme. Is the National Guard regarded as militia? Or does the second dictionary meaning get quoted as gospel violating the 'well-regulated' section of the Second Amendment?


Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by kuresu, posted 04-28-2007 3:22 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 04-28-2007 12:18 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 04-28-2007 5:06 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 708 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 11 of 301 (397869)
04-28-2007 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Nighttrain
04-28-2007 3:14 AM


Re: Militia
okay aussie, I'll give it a shot.

our national gaurds are militias--state militias. Then we have the reserves (which is at the federal level).

Personally, I think that amendment harks back to the "minute-men". In a way, at any rate. The "minute-men" during the American Revolution were men who drilled (or trained, whatever), and ready to fight the opposing army within minutes. Something to that effect, at any rate.

The intent of the 2nd amendment, I think, is to protect the existence of such militias. You have guns for use in war, not for personal defense.

I think the reason that the individual part is so emphasized today is because of our history of expanding throughout the continent. You needed a gun to protect yourself from the oft-times hostile locals. And then there's the "wild wild west" mythos. Think John Wayne.

I hope this explains somethings. Probably doesn't, though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Nighttrain, posted 04-28-2007 3:14 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 301 (397883)
04-28-2007 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
04-26-2007 12:30 AM


1) I do not think there is a legitimate reason for anyone other than the military to be able to own a firearm that is capable of firing off rounds in very rapid succession.

2) The gun lobby has shamefully and almost always effectively fought any reasonable restriction or requirement or delay to gun ownership.

3) If gun ownership is to be allowed, I think that people should have to be licensed to own one, such that they must:

-be at least 21 to own a gun

-undergo fingerprinting and a criminal background check

-give proof of residency

-successfully complete a firearms safety course and test.

I also think there needs to be stricter liability laws for how people store their guns and ammunition.

I also think there needs to be stricter laws with regard to child safety locks; as in, all guns sold to private citizens in the US should have them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 04-26-2007 12:30 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Quetzal, posted 04-28-2007 11:33 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 254 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 5:34 PM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 13 of 301 (397886)
04-28-2007 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 2:25 AM


Re: You, on the other hand, are right.
Look, the kid in Virginia who bought those guns was nuts.

He lied on his application to get a gun because the law only required self-reporting of the fact that he had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

It is sheer madness and, in my opinion, criminally negligent, to depend upon the honesty or mental stability of the customer when selling a weapon that is designed for no other reason than to kill people.

What do you say to the people the crazy peron killed, and their families, because it was far too easy for him to get a gun.

"Whoops"?

Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 2:25 AM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 2:31 PM nator has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4067 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 301 (397930)
04-28-2007 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by nator
04-28-2007 7:44 AM


I totally agree with you schraf. And I'm a gun-owner (have been all my adult life). I sold off most of my handguns when the kids were born (it was too much of a safety trade-off), but maintain several long-guns (my sister is keeping them while I'm overseas). Last year I bought my youngest her first .22 rifle - and taught her how to safely use it. She was thrilled - almost a kind of "rite of passage" :D .

I have NO issue whatsoever with autoweapons bans, waiting periods, background checks, and mandatory weapons-safety classes. To be honest, I never understood the reluctance. I've heard the reasoning (i.e., gun-ownership is a way to insure that in the event of tyranny individuals have the means to defend themselves from the government, and if we register guns the government will be able to take them away because it'll know who has them), but I find the argument spurious for a number of reasons.

ABE: I am opposed to fingerprinting, however - but for other reasons than gun-nuttery. You can conduct an effective background check without that.

Edited by Quetzal, : addition


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 7:44 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 12:25 PM Quetzal has responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 15 of 301 (397934)
04-28-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
04-26-2007 12:30 AM


So, from a very literally stand point, any and every firearm imaginable from a .22 to an M2 to a gatling gun should all be perfectly legal in these United States.

Agreed - indeed, laws that infringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear gatling guns could be seen as unconstitutional. Though I'm sure there is some sort of balancing test to determine that.

But, as we've seen recently, easy access to guns yields massive casualties.

You don't mean at VT, I assume. Those students were not allowed to carry weapons - they did not have easy access to guns.

Did the founding fathers, in the days of muzzle loaders with bad range and worse aim, honestly intend for the events of VT to happen? Remember he got his perfectly legal gun perfectly legally.

No, they meant for everyone to have the right to keep and bear arms, not for some people to have the right, but others not to have the right. And naturally they didn't anticipate the population densities we have now, nor the culture in general. Nor could the anticipate the advances in firearm technology.

The second ammendment needs ammending methinks. As a Brit, let me warn others of the dangers of sticking to constitution over common sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 04-26-2007 12:30 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 12:28 PM Modulous has responded

1
23456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019