Main > Everything Else
The Clinton gun ban has expired!
tep0583:
--- Quote from: shmokes on September 16, 2004, 03:25:43 am ---
--- Quote from: tep0583 on September 15, 2004, 11:21:36 pm ---It DOES prohibit government from regulating anything defined as 'arms' (now genarally accepted to be those weapons defined by US vs. Miller) by the 2nd. It very clearly states that the people's rights to own these sort of weapons "shall not be infringed". Any restrictions to the owenership of these arms counts as "infringement".
--- End quote ---
This is nonsensical. If it's stated so "clearly" why do we need U.S. v. Miller to define arms are? If a bazooka can be defined out of the term "arms" why can other weapons not suffer the same fate? Are you suggesting that a well regulated militia could not make use of grenades, mines and missile launchers? How can we provide freedom of the press and still provide fair trials? How can we support the anti-establishment of religion in public schools, without abridging someones right to free exercise?
--- End quote ---
I thought it was quite sensical, considering my blood-alcohol level at the time of its writing.
The afore mentioned case defined arms as those weapons issued to your typical "grunt", for lack of better terms. Rocket launchers and the like are not simply handed out to each and every soldier. Only those with special training and jobs are issued such weapons. The same applies to tanks, planes, artillery,even nukes (which really are not issued). Note that, as far as I am aware other issued items , such are gernades are perfectly legal to own, just so long as you can find a source for them (good luck) and can afford their price + the destructive device tax ($200 PER round, as I understand it).
We didn't NEED anthing to define it, until a prosecuter took somebody (Miller) to court over a care pertaining to "arms". The court then clarified their interpertatin of the 2nd's definition of "arms", so that the law would be "clear" in the future. (This IS my understanding as to the function of the courts.)
Religion and schools are and easy one. Schools are run by the government and the government is strictly forbidden from establising a "national Religion". Establishing a religion in schools is, in effect, establishing a national religion.
Freedom of the press vs fair trials is covered. You cannot violate the rights of people to have a fair trial for the right to free press. (Just as I cannot use my rght to arm myself to force you to give up your right to not self-incriminate)
--- Quote ---It's quaint to think of the Bill of Rights as black & white, but it's simply unworkable. They should not be tossed about willy-nilly, but they are not as cut-and-dry as you suggest.
--- End quote ---
Yes, obviously they should be tossed OUT willy-nilly, based on whim, for the "greater good". The Bill of Rights is quite Black & White and was intended to be this way. Take the first, for example, it states you have the right to "peacably assemble". Yelling 'fire' in a crowded building is going to do nothing to enhance the "peacability" of the "gathering" and is thus, not covered by the first. This is the same way criminals are denied the ability to own arms. (felons forfit cirten Constuitional rights) .
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Blah blah blah
I'm afraid of guns
blah blah blah
That's gotta be the most smartass sarcastic and funny thing I've seen that I haven't said myself! That's so friggen funny, I may show up in IL just to meet a guy as smart-ass as myself. Good one.
--- End quote ---
You need some sleep, Drew ;)
--- End quote ---
TA Pilot:
I respectfully disagree. Guns do kill people
Of course - thats what they're designed for.
If they could not be used to kill people, they'd be useless, and there;d be no amendment protecting our right to own and use them.
For every story about someone defending him/herself with a gun, there are probably twenty stories about four-year-old girls accidentally killing themselves with guns,
Indeed not. There are fewer than 1000 accidental gun deaths per year; there are somewhere in the neighborhood og 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year.
That's why there are no guns at my house and my kids aren't allowed to go to anyone's house where there is a gun.
Thats your choice.
Dont presume to make that choice for me.
Also - if you arent teaching your kids how to effectively deal with and safely handle a gun, you;re depriving them of information thats essential to their safety and welfare.
But why anybody other than people who use them in the military would actually want, or should be allowed to own a firearm is beyond me.
Why anyone would want a tatoo is beyond me.
Why anyone would want a pierced nipple is beyond me.
That these things are beyond me isnt an argument against people being able to do these things.
and don't give me that 'it's so we can defend ourselves and our country,and take our country back from an opressive government' crap
The right to arms is all about the people having access to an effective means of defending themselves, individually or collectively, with deadly force.
TA Pilot:
We do not need any innefectual "feel good" legislation that only further burdens the legal system.
Agree.
We need gun control laws that:
-Keep guns from criminals
-Do not infringe on the right to arms.
So why did they just pass a law requiring cashiers to card people who appear to be under the age of 27? This is worse than just nonsense, it clutters the judicial system and serves no real purpose.
Gun dealers are required to "card" gun byuers.
It's the BULLET that does the actual killing, so let's make the bullet manufacturer liable for all gun related violence. After all, guns are useless without the bullets.
Guns, bullets, etc, are inanimite.
They are the tool, not the actor. The actor is the killer, the weapon is the tool with which he killed.
But today everybody wants unlimited rights and no responsibility for their actions. It is this trend that offers us almost no other option but to increase controls.
Patently false. No one argues that the right to arms has no boundaries.
TA Pilot:
This is nonsensical. If it's stated so "clearly" why do we need U.S. v. Miller to define arms are?
We dont "need" it, we "have" it. There was a question if a certain weapon was protected by the 2nd, and the court creates a test to see if it (and any other weapon) was an "arm" under the 2nd.
If a bazooka can be defined out of the term "arms" why can other weapons not suffer the same fate?
Soem weapons are outside the scope of the amendment, as per the Miller test. But, because of the Miller test, some weapons are CLEARLY "arms" under the 2nd.
fredster:
I found an interesting site to compare stats of crime/murder and a lot of other things between countries.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version