Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,059 Year: 5,316/9,624 Month: 341/323 Week: 185/160 Day: 2/19 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 5179 (684091)
12-15-2012 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by cavediver
12-15-2012 2:52 PM


How many times have you shot guns?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by cavediver, posted 12-15-2012 2:52 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by cavediver, posted 12-15-2012 3:53 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 101 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2012 5:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 96 of 5179 (684092)
12-15-2012 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
12-14-2012 3:25 PM


See any news source.
We shouldn't be talking about gun control in the wake of this.
We should be talking about our mental healthcare program.
Or we should be talking about the news media responses to things like this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 12-14-2012 3:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by NoNukes, posted 12-15-2012 4:03 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 254 of 5179 (684360)
12-17-2012 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Theodoric
12-17-2012 10:56 AM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard - NOT the military
with their own guns
The wording is "bear arms" not own arms. If they meant personal ownership why did they not state that?
They did: its "keep and bear arms".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2012 10:56 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2012 11:28 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 255 of 5179 (684364)
12-17-2012 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by RAZD
12-16-2012 9:45 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
And the constitution clearly states that the regulation, organization and training are functions for the states, not mobs of self-appointed people.
It says that the state has the power to do those things, but it does not limit the militia to being powered by the state.
The 2nd Amendment is there so that the People, as individuals, will have arms so that a militia can become organized if need be.
This too, is easy to understand language: the state militias have become the National Guard, pure and simple, with additional duties to suit modern needs that were not envisaged\conceived\considered by the founding fathers (eg -- terrorism, etc)
Your link says that the National Guard is a subset of the militia.
The constitution also leaves the final voice on interpretation to the Supreme Court, which is why gun control issues get to that level in the process of making new laws.
The Supreme Court said its an individual right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2012 9:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2012 11:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 582 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2012 9:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 5179 (684365)
12-17-2012 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by saab93f
12-17-2012 6:14 AM


Re: The Reality aint easy
Could someone pretty please tell me why a civilian would ever need a rapid-fire gun?
You've got it backwards. Rights aren't determined by need.
Rights are restricted by need. The question is why would we need to stop a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by saab93f, posted 12-17-2012 6:14 AM saab93f has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2012 11:31 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 5179 (684371)
12-17-2012 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Theodoric
12-17-2012 11:31 AM


Re: The Reality aint easy
Another word that can be defined multiple ways. Why didn't they say "own and bear"?
I dunno, they talked differnt back then. How could I even know that?
The question is why would we need to stop a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun.
quote:
promote the general Welfare,
Now all you have to do is show how stopping a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun promotes the general Welfare.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2012 11:31 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2012 11:42 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 265 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2012 11:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 264 of 5179 (684377)
12-17-2012 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by NoNukes
12-17-2012 11:37 AM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
It says that the state has the power to do those things, but it does not limit the militia to being powered by the state.
Not quite correct, CS. The power to train, organize, etc. a constitutional 'Militia' is reserved to the states in Article I of the constitution.
Section 8:
quote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...
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;
To me, the militia means the individuals of The People who have the right to have arms. This is greater than the portion of them that will be called up and trained when the need arrises. When that happens, it'll be up to the States to get them organized and appoint officers.
Yes, there can be other groups of citizens with guns, and they can call themselves a militia, or the minutemen, or the Klan if they want. But those are not the groups referered to as 'the Militia' in the constitution.
The groups refered to as 'the Militia' in the constitution will be compromised of The People, who as individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, because the security of the free stated relies on a well regulated militia, and a well regulated militia relies on the people having arms.
The 2nd amendment does not create a Militia. The provisions for that are in the body of the constitution.
I was replying to RAZD's comments on Article 1 Section 8, not the 2nd amendment.
The 2nd Amendment prevents The People from being disarmed, because the security of the free state depends on it.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2012 11:37 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 5179 (684382)
12-17-2012 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Theodoric
12-17-2012 11:59 AM


Re: The Reality aint easy
I dunno, they talked differnt back then. How could I even know that?
My point exactly.
Bullshit. Your point was that the amendment didn't mean for people to use their own guns because it said bear them, not own them. But it says keep them to, so you're just wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with people talking differently back then.
Now all you have to do is show how stopping a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun promotes the general Welfare.
Really? Have you heard of Newtown, CT?
Yeah, we have a real problem with how we treat, or don't treat, mental illness in this country.
CT has some of the strictest gun control laws around. Obviously gun control laws don't prevent these trageties. Stopping a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun fails to promote the general Welfare. You're wrong again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2012 11:59 AM Theodoric has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 5179 (684383)
12-17-2012 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Theodoric
12-17-2012 12:00 PM


Re: And so the pendulum swings again.
because there's no such thing as an "assault-type weapon"
Gee. We had a ban once. Seems they defined the term then.
That stupid ban defined as assault weapons ones that had no business being called as such, and failed to define some that would have better met their goals if banned.
It was stupidly based on asthetics by lawmakers who knew next to nothing about how guns work or what made them better for assault.
It was an utter farce.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2012 12:00 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by 1.61803, posted 12-17-2012 12:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 5179 (684384)
12-17-2012 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by 1.61803
12-17-2012 12:05 PM


Re: And so the pendulum swings again.
And if Fed law prevented the manufacture and ownership of these types of bullets by civilians we would see a reduction in the use of these types of arms being used in mass shootings.
It didn't work with drugs, what makes you think it'll work with bullets?
All the stuff you need to make your own bullets already exists and is in the hands of the people. There's nothing to stop the bullets from continuing to exist even thought they've been banned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by 1.61803, posted 12-17-2012 12:05 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by 1.61803, posted 12-17-2012 12:34 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 5179 (684389)
12-17-2012 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by 1.61803
12-17-2012 12:21 PM


Re: And so the pendulum swings again.
Why farce
It was based on asthetics, not anything that had to do with making a gun an "assault weapon".
a SKS or AK47 is not designed for anything other than shooting humans.
First off, if I want to defend myself against humans then I'd like a gun designed for shooting humans.
Secondly, I don't give a shit what's its designed for when determining whether people have a right to own it. Even wiki knows this one:
quote:
The SKS is popular on the civilian surplus market, especially in Canada and the United States. Because of their historic and novel nature, Soviet and European SKS carbines are classified by the BATF as "Curio & Relic" items under US law, allowing them to be sold with features that might otherwise be restricted.
People buy SKS's because they're fucking cool, not because they were designed to shoot humans.
If someone wants to own such a weapon fine. Let them do so under the same laws one must abide in owning a Uzi or Thompson.
What, a tax?
From Message 273
Apples and oranges, the fed does not allow the ownership and sale of fully automatic weapons for civillians, and we do not routinely today read of their use in mass shootings in this country. Why?
Because fully automaic weapons have never been wide spread among the population.
Drugs and guns are wide spread. Making them illegal doesn't make them disappear.
As far as reloading goes, most folks I know that re load are responsible gun owners and enthusiast. Responsible meaning they keep their guns in a safe.
And? Most of the people that I know that own guns are responsible gun owners.
The point was that making bullets illegal isn't going to cause a reduction in their use when people can just make their bullets themselves if they want to.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by 1.61803, posted 12-17-2012 12:21 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by 1.61803, posted 12-17-2012 12:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 5179 (684395)
12-17-2012 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by 1.61803
12-17-2012 12:54 PM


Re: And so the pendulum swings again.
Sure, this follows. So should you not consider a fully automatic weapon with a high capacity mag? Why half step?
Simple: I can't afford a full-auto.
On the other hand, I'd prolly be in my house and wouldn't want to wreck the place.
There are lots of cool shit out there. If I thought hand grenades were cool would it follow I should be able to go to Walmart and buy one? If not why?
First off, grenades are not firearms and you don't have a right to own them. Secondly, unlike firearms, destructive devices are just too dangerous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by 1.61803, posted 12-17-2012 12:54 PM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 12-17-2012 2:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 287 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 12-17-2012 2:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 5179 (684404)
12-17-2012 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Percy
12-17-2012 2:10 PM


I don't give a fuck about the NRA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 12-17-2012 2:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Percy, posted 12-17-2012 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 5179 (684413)
12-17-2012 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Percy
12-17-2012 2:28 PM


Oh, so you were just talking out of your ass?
"Destructive device" is a legal term.
quote:
The definition of a "destructive device" is found in 26 U.S.C. 5845(f). The definition reads as follows:
(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, (D) missile having an explosive charge of more than 1/4 ounce, (E) mine or (F) similar device.
Destructive device - Wikipedia
Stop being a jerk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Percy, posted 12-17-2012 2:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Percy, posted 12-17-2012 3:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 5179 (684419)
12-17-2012 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
12-17-2012 2:35 PM


Re: And so the pendulum swings again.
Funny enough, you are incorrect on this, it is just super expensive to own them and you must continually renew licenses, I believe every three years to own a "Destructive Device".
M203 Grenade Launcher
I was responding to why they shouldn't be available at WalMart...
I know they can be had: My uncle has one, I've handled it. But he said he could only get flares for it though... we never fired it.
This will not defeat the problem of unregistered weapons or the black market, but would ensure that legally purchased guns are able to be properly stored preventing individuals who should not have access to them from getting their hands on them.
I just thought of this today and it is an idea that I have never heard proposed, so please tear the idea apart if need be, but I would think it could avoid these types of scenarios where an individual simply takes mom's guns to create havoc...
That prevents the effective use of the gun for home defense. You shouldn't have to fumble around with a safe while someone's breaking into your house.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 12-17-2012 2:35 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by jar, posted 12-17-2012 2:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 298 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 12-17-2012 2:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 370 by saab93f, posted 12-18-2012 2:35 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024