Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 5:11 PM
22 online now:
1.61803, CosmicChimp, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Theodoric (6 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,789 Year: 4,826/19,786 Month: 948/873 Week: 304/376 Day: 97/57 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Author Topic:   Gun Control & 2nd Amendment
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3845
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 181 of 218 (552154)
03-26-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Jon
03-26-2010 2:00 PM


Look 'em up.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 03-26-2010 2:00 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Jon, posted 03-27-2010 1:28 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3845
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 182 of 218 (552157)
03-26-2010 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
03-26-2010 9:41 PM


Re: what is a militia?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2010 9:41 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2010 10:51 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19809
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 183 of 218 (552160)
03-26-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by AZPaul3
03-26-2010 10:06 PM


Re: what is a militia?
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by AZPaul3, posted 03-26-2010 10:06 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by AZPaul3, posted 03-26-2010 11:36 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 185 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2010 12:04 AM RAZD has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3845
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 184 of 218 (552162)
03-26-2010 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by RAZD
03-26-2010 10:51 PM


Re: what is a militia?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2010 10:51 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Theodoric, posted 03-27-2010 9:12 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 218 (552163)
03-27-2010 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by RAZD
03-26-2010 10:51 PM


Re: what is a militia?
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2010 10:51 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Theodoric, posted 03-27-2010 9:17 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2010 12:33 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6005
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 186 of 218 (552194)
03-27-2010 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by AZPaul3
03-26-2010 11:36 PM


Depending
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by AZPaul3, posted 03-26-2010 11:36 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by AZPaul3, posted 03-27-2010 10:39 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6005
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 187 of 218 (552195)
03-27-2010 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by New Cat's Eye
03-27-2010 12:04 AM


Judge, jury and executioner?
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2010 12:04 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-29-2010 12:11 PM Theodoric has acknowledged this reply

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3845
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 188 of 218 (552202)
03-27-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Theodoric
03-27-2010 9:12 AM


Re: Depending
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Theodoric, posted 03-27-2010 9:12 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19809
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 189 of 218 (552215)
03-27-2010 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by New Cat's Eye
03-27-2010 12:04 AM


What is a militia? What is appropriate?
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:
Amendment II
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.

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:
militia n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

[Latin mīlitia, warfare, military service, from mīles, mīlit-, soldier.]
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


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:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

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:
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2010 12:04 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by AZPaul3, posted 03-27-2010 5:54 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 199 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-29-2010 12:08 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 201 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-29-2010 2:49 PM RAZD has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 218 (552221)
03-27-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by AZPaul3
03-26-2010 9:56 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by AZPaul3, posted 03-26-2010 9:56 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Theodoric, posted 03-27-2010 1:30 PM Jon has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6005
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 191 of 218 (552222)
03-27-2010 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Jon
03-27-2010 1:28 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Jon, posted 03-27-2010 1:28 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Jon, posted 03-27-2010 9:53 PM Theodoric has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3845
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 192 of 218 (552248)
03-27-2010 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by RAZD
03-27-2010 12:33 PM


Re: What is a militia? What is appropriate?
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 thats fine, but, please RAZD, dont make more of it than it is.

Edited by AZPaul3, : clarification.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2010 12:33 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 218 (552266)
03-27-2010 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Theodoric
03-27-2010 1:30 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Theodoric, posted 03-27-2010 1:30 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Theodoric, posted 03-27-2010 10:11 PM Jon has responded
 Message 198 by AZPaul3, posted 03-28-2010 10:40 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6005
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 194 of 218 (552269)
03-27-2010 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Jon
03-27-2010 9:53 PM


oh please do explain
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Jon, posted 03-27-2010 9:53 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Jon, posted 03-27-2010 11:19 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 218 (552280)
03-27-2010 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Theodoric
03-27-2010 10:11 PM


Re: oh please do explain
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Theodoric, posted 03-27-2010 10:11 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Theodoric, posted 03-27-2010 11:21 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019