The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Ralph Wiggum on September 30, 2009, 09:21:13 AM
-
The Supreme Court announced this morning it will hear a challenge to Chicago's gun restrictions that will determine if local handgun bans are legal.
Last year, the high court ruled the 2nd Amendment gave individuals the right to possess firearms and struck down Washington, D.C.'s gun bans.
Left open was the question of whether states and local governments are required to do the same.
By agreeing to take up the cases National Rifle Association vs. City of Chicago and McDonald vs. City of Chicago, the high court potentially could set in motion a nationwide re-establishment of the right to bear arms. Those two cases challenge several Chicago gun laws, including the city's ban on handguns.
LINK (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/09/supreme-court-may-decide-on-hearing-chicago-gun-cases.html?track=email-alert-breakingnews)
-
We already know how Sotomayor will rule.She will side with the city/state.
-
We already know how Sotomayor will rule.She will side with the city/state.
Let's remember who she replaced--Souter, one of the libs on the court. Sotomayor's presence on the SCOTUS won't change the final outcome. It'll be either 5-4 or 6-3 to strike down the laws, and handgun permits will be "shall-issue" across the US.
-
This interesting, since arguably the Second Amendment is really more broadly written than the First. The First just says "Congress shall make no laws, etc." but does not limit State power, it has been applied to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence and so more or less bootstrapped into granting rights that don't actually appear in the text. The Second, on the other hand, clearly confers a right on the People, it does not just impose a limit on Federal legislative power.
-
Let's remember who she replaced--Souter, one of the libs on the court. Sotomayor's presence on the SCOTUS won't change the final outcome. It'll be either 5-4 or 6-3 to strike down the laws, and handgun permits will be "shall-issue" across the US.
If "shall issue" becomes the law of the land, the states will find ways around it. Illinois recently considered raising the fees for gun permits to several hundreds of dollars per year. Cities could easily do the same for local gun permits. Then there is the ammo situation, many ways there to circumvent any pro second amendment ruling from the USSC.
-
It's too bad that the case can't be heard and a decision rendered immediately, in order to be announced before the IOC decides on whether to award Chicago the 2016 Summer Olympics.
-
Is Ginsberg going to be in on this case? That's a sure grabber vote - all the gun control Chicago enacted has done little to stop the rampant crime there. But I think the IOC has already made (via bribes) their decision, Ralph.
-
This has been said many times before, but I will say it again.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Guns are the reason why the crime rate is low in the south.
Everyone is a gun owner. Although they are starting to see gang activity in the south.
Making handguns illegal is not going to stop gangs from getting guns, it will stop citizens from protecting themselves.
Liberals are so stupid.
If you look at the statistics, communities where more citizens have guns, have lower crime rates...
-
After striking down the D.C. ban, I don't see how the court could justify leaving the Chicago ban in place.
-
After striking down the D.C. ban, I don't see how the court could justify leaving the Chicago ban in place.
The gun-control advocates are calling it a "state's rights issue". :mental:
-
The gun-control advocates are calling it a "state's rights issue". :mental:
IMO, it's no more a State's rights issue than the 1st Amendment.
-
IMO, it's no more a State's rights issue than the 1st Amendment.
As ludicrous as it sounds, that is the new argument that the Sarah Brady's of the country seem to be pinning their latest attacks on.
From Bad to Worse (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/Gun-Banner-Books.pdf)
-
IT IS a state's rights issue. Duluth, MN decided that they would ban handguns within the city. They were overturned by the State's pre-emption law up there. There are other states that won't issue carry permits to everyone that's not a criminal. Wisconsin and Iowa. California and Maryland are not "shall issue", either. I'm probably missing a few.
-
IT IS a state's rights issue. Duluth, MN decided that they would ban handguns within the city. They were overturned by the State's pre-emption law up there. There are other states that won't issue carry permits to everyone that's not a criminal. Wisconsin and Iowa. California and Maryland are not "shall issue", either. I'm probably missing a few.
"States rights" does not mean what it normally does in this context (State vs. Federal) it is about whether INDIVIDUAL rights guaranteed in the BOR are within or beyond the right of the States to alter. Considerable First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment case law says States can't do that, the question here is whether the Supremes will have the guts to take that to its proper logical conclusion with the Second after definitively ruling that it affords an individual right the same as the rest of the first eight Amendments.
-
The left, in particular the ACLU believes that the "separation of church and state" applies to states and all other bodies of government. By that reasoning alone, the 2nd amendment should apply to all government entities.
-
In my opinion it should be left to the states to decide what to allow.
When it comes to "arms," a line does have to be drawn somewhere. No reasonable person would argue in favor of individuals owning rocket launchers or an Abrams tank. How about a nuclear-tipped ICBM?
Since you need to draw a line somewhere as to what weaponry citizens are allowed to have, you should leave it to the states. After all, states are specifically granted all powers not given to the federal government.
-
In my opinion it should be left to the states to decide what to allow.
When it comes to "arms," a line does have to be drawn somewhere. No reasonable person would argue in favor of individuals owning rocket launchers or an Abrams tank. How about a nuclear-tipped ICBM?
Since you need to draw a line somewhere as to what weaponry citizens are allowed to have, you should leave it to the states. After all, states are specifically granted all powers not given to the federal government.
If you can afford and control it, why not? Do a little research on your history and how during colonial days, citizens were allowed and even EXPECTED to keep heavy arms (mortars, etc.,) to defend the frontier in case of attack. The whole idea of the 2A was so that the PEOPLE would retain the power, not the government, and that if government became too tyrannical to change via the ballot, then the bullet was still an option.
But what does it say when our police have military weapons, similar tactics, and the will to use them? Obama's comment about a "civilian defense force at least as well-funded as our military" isn't all that far from the mark today. At times, it seems almost a circumvention of Posse Commitatus.
And no, the states should NOT control whether or not I get to keep a gun, or what kind. The Second Amendment pretty clearly states:
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.
What part of "shall not be infringed" confuses you?
-
So that we all can be clear:
You're supporting the right for a private individual to own a nuclear-tipped ICBM capable of leveling a city?
-
So that we all can be clear:
You're supporting the right for a private individual to own a nuclear-tipped ICBM capable of leveling a city?
you are one stupid mother ****er.
In the pure sense of the original amendment it states "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." any weapon would be allowed.
This country has chosen, over time, to change the meaning of this amendment to be:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[/b]
except automatic weapons
except short barreled weapons
except large capacity magazines in weapons
except you need a licence
except if you live in some states
except etc etc etc.
:fuelfire:
-
Ok, so I still am not seeing the point you're trying to make. I know that certain weapons are not allowed in some areas. Certain weapons are not allowed in ANY area. If we're going to be making distinctions between which weapons are allowed and which aren't, I'd rather that individual states make the choice rather than the federal government.
So which are you in favor of? Banning some weapons or banning NO weapons? You didn't give a straight answer, you just quoted the bill of rights.
The world is not the same as it was 250 years ago. Black people, women, 18 year-olds, and people who don't own land get to vote. The Air Force is a separate entity from the Army. People can get from one end of this country to another in a few hours, but don't really have to because they can communicate over that distance instantly. Fire departments are a public institution, so you don't need to pay a fee to have your burning house saved. And weapons technology has advanced to the point where some weapons are so destructive that they cannot be trusted in the hands of citizens.
So yes, we've changed our minds when it comes to how much firepower you should carry. Would you prefer that decision be made in Washington by Zero or would you prefer your state legislature, who is at least somewhat answerable to you, decide?
-
Ok, so I still am not seeing the point you're trying to make. I know that certain weapons are not allowed in some areas. Certain weapons are not allowed in ANY area. If we're going to be making distinctions between which weapons are allowed and which aren't, I'd rather that individual states make the choice rather than the federal government.
So which are you in favor of? Banning some weapons or banning NO weapons? You didn't give a straight answer, you just quoted the bill of rights.
The world is not the same as it was 250 years ago. Black people, women, 18 year-olds, and people who don't own land get to vote. The Air Force is a separate entity from the Army. People can get from one end of this country to another in a few hours, but don't really have to because they can communicate over that distance instantly. Fire departments are a public institution, so you don't need to pay a fee to have your burning house saved. And weapons technology has advanced to the point where some weapons are so destructive that they cannot be trusted in the hands of citizens.
So yes, we've changed our minds when it comes to how much firepower you should carry. Would you prefer that decision be made in Washington by Zero or would you prefer your state legislature, who is at least somewhat answerable to you, decide?
The point, dipstick, is that the tenth amendment reserves all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government to the states OR to the people individually. The Second Amendment takes the authority to restrict ownership and proper use of arms by law-abiding* otherwise peaceable citizens away from BOTH the Federal and State governments:
...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment wasn't established to facilitate and ease the responsibilities of the state: to think otherwise is to misunderstand the use of the term "militia" in the Founder's context. The Second Amendment was put there, to ensure that the general body of peaceable citizenry - the militia, in the Founder's vocabulary - could have access to the same war-fighting hardware that their potentially oppressive government might. Such traditions were not openly undermined until the first "Progressive" administrations of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, respectively. They were not undermined by force of law until the 1930s and Franklin Roosevelt's administration.
-
Ok, so I still am not seeing the point you're trying to make. I know that certain weapons are not allowed in some areas. Certain weapons are not allowed in ANY area. If we're going to be making distinctions between which weapons are allowed and which aren't, I'd rather that individual states make the choice rather than the federal government.
So which are you in favor of? Banning some weapons or banning NO weapons? You didn't give a straight answer, you just quoted the bill of rights.
banning NO weapons.
Shit, can you not read what I wrote?
As that great American Tim Wilson said:
"In 1776 the Government had muskets and cannon and the people had muskets and cannon.
"In 2009 the Government has Jets and tanks and the people have muskets and cannon."
-
banning NO weapons.
Shit, can you not read what I wrote?
If you have to ask, sir...
-
If you have to ask, sir...
Damm I HATE stupid assed retards.
-
Got into this argument with a lib a while ago. He's anti-gun, of course.
He went right to "should you be able to drive an Abram's tank on the road?" I couldn't stop :rotf:.
He couldn't get the fact that owning a weapon - OF ANY KIND - infringes on NO ONE's rights. Period.
Use of that weapon in a way that infringes on someone elses rights is ALL that can be regulated. And it's already regulated by law (murder, theft, etc, etc), so there's no need to create laws dictating who can own what.
But we all know those laws are not about protecting people from other people. They are all about protecting gov't from the people.
-
Ok. So you do support private owning of nuclear weaponry. Got it. Thanks.
We must then agree to disagree, I guess.
-
Ok. So you do support private owning of nuclear weaponry. Got it. Thanks.
We must then agree to disagree, I guess.
Thats because you are a stupid dumb-assed mother ****er.
-
Ok. So you do support private owning of nuclear weaponry. Got it. Thanks.
We must then agree to disagree, I guess.
Yeah, cause I've got a few billion burning a hole in my pocket and a big hole on the back of my property that'll fit a Minuteman III just ****ing perfectly.
God, what an asshat. Take the extreme (absurdist) view and apply to all situations. It's all you know.
-
Ok. So you do support private owning of nuclear weaponry. Got it. Thanks.
We must then agree to disagree, I guess.
You and I are going to disagree on a LOT of things... Public Health care, 2nd amendment... hmmm.. are you sure you're on the right forum?
-
You and I are going to disagree on a LOT of things... Public Health care, 2nd amendment... hmmm.. are you sure you're on the right forum?
Every forum needs a few chew toys.
-
Did I say that I supported gun bans? No, I didn't. But you guys have just said NO YOU SHALL NOT INFRINGE UPON MY RIGHTS AT ALL!
I don't support private ownership of ICBMs. Sure, you can't afford one anyway, but what about that middle-eastern oil tycoon? He's got the cash handy, and he's got some very passionately speaking friends.
You guys jump to way too many conclusions.
FOR THE RECORD:
I think a firearms ban is unconstitutional, not to mention irrational. The cities with total bans on handguns have some of the highest crime/murder rates. Most crimes committed with guns are committed with stolen guns, and criminals don't care in the least whether they are legally allowed to have that gun! As they say, if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Bans don't work and we shouldn't have them anyway. Even the assault weapons bans don't really make sense, because legally owned "assault weapons" are pretty much never used in crimes. You don't rob a bank with an AR-15. (or as the media calls it, A FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN OF BABY KILLING)
But no, I don't support your right to own an anti-aircraft missile. I fly planes for a living and would really prefer those not be around at all. I do draw a line somewhere.
Stop making assumptions about my political beliefs. I'm not a communist just because I'm slightly less to the right than you guys are. My "public healthcare" support was for a pretty ideal-world-version totally different than what the democrats want. You're even contradicting yourselves on the 2nd amendment. NO WEAPONS should be banned, but owning nuclear weapons legally is an "absurdist" scenario?
I understand the 2nd amendment completely. I just choose to believe that there are limits to the amount of firepower the people should possess.
But lets throw the ball back to you guys' court. Why are handguns banned from airline flights? Should they be? Why or why not?
-
You realize that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to a mid-easter oil tycoon..... right? So why bring it up?
And I'm glad to know you don't support gun bans, but your position, in and of itself, by definition, is supporting banning of guns/weapons that you are not comfortable with. Isn't that a contradiction of sorts?
Yes. Guns SHOULD be allowed on planes. Had they been, 9/11 may have been avoided. Guns should be allowed everywhere, IMHO. I have no issues with owning/carrying anything. Use it to infringe on someone elses rights in any way and we're going to have a major problem however.
And I know that will result in the "what about schools?" or "what about hospitals?" or "what about (insert emotinoally-driven location here)???" type of knee jerk reactions form many people. I'm kind of black and white on this one, I admit... the 2nd guarantees our RIGHT to bear arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," IIRC... so isn't your position, however logical and common sensical you find it, technically a violation of the 2nd?
-
what a ****ing retard.
When was the last 'middle-eastern oil tycoon' arrested for a weapons charge in teh USA?
Hmmm? waiting....waiting....waiting....
dumb ass. :bird:
-
I don't support private ownership of ICBMs. Sure, you can't afford one anyway, but what about that middle-eastern oil tycoon? He's got the cash handy, and he's got some very passionately speaking friends.
Your middle eastern oil tycoon isn't an American citizen, and therefore has the laws of his own country by which he has chosen to live. He has no rights insofar as the US Constitution is concerned. He cannot buy up an ICBM, and when his sheik comes for his head, tell him that the US Constitution gives him a right to keep and bear any weapon of his choosing.
By the way, you are aware that private ownership of ICBMs is not all that uncommon a thing, aren't you? There is a firm out of California, for example, which bought up a whole mess of former Soviet SS-18 boosters with the intention of using them as launch vehicles for satellites. ICBMs, Sr. Deuce. In private hands, Sr. Deuce.
Are you sure you don't want to re-think your position, Sr. Deuce?
edited to add: By the way, Sr, Deuce, you are aware that in most respects, what you refer to casually as an "anti-aircraft missile" is nearly indistinguishable from a scientific sounding rocket, aren't you? Back in the 1950s and 60s, the Nike series of AA missiles was first established as a series of high altitude scientific research vehicles before it was militarized? Back when I was doing time at the U of Washington - in the early 90s - we had an Engineering lab that kicked out 3-4 high altitude research rockets a month; they looked uncannily like the US Navy's SM-2 'Standard' Anti-Aircraft missile.
-
It was a theoretical scenario. The oil tycoon would in fact be subject to the second amendment if he moved here.
I referred specifically to nuclear-tipped ICBMS. You know, the ones with the 500kt MIRV warheads. Obviously I wasn't referring to converting weapons into non-weapon uses.
As I mentioned, I fly planes for a living. No, you can't have guns on my plane.
Why? If even one passenger went bonkers and decided to shoot at the cockpit, he might take me and my copilot out before passengers are able to take him down. Now you're all probably going to die. Even if he misses, bulletholes will cause the cabin to depressurize and endanger everyone on board, or if key systems are hit we all go down in flames.
You can't say 9/11 would have been prevented if the passengers were armed. What if the terrorists were better armed? If five passengers have guns, but there are seven terrorists with better guns, it's not going to help. 9/11 may have been thwarted, or it may have happened twenty years earlier. It's all speculation.
I get it now. You guys support all weapons being legal in all situations. I support most weapons being legal in most situations. It's a difference of opinion and I think we can all be civil about it.
-
How was it theoretical? You were talking about limiting the 2nd and then used an example that doesn't even apply.
Do you honestly think that said tycoon is going to get the warhead through customs?
Is it your plan or your employers?
I dind't say 9/11 WOULD have been prevented, did I? Nope - just checked. Your position of "you shouldn't have guns because the mean people will just have bigger guns" is weak and illogical.
I support the 2nd. You say you do as well, but then your entire argument is about limiting the 2nd. How does that compute?
-
Customs would not confiscate the weapon if it were legal. Or maybe the theoretical immigrating oil tycoon would just buy it here at Nuke-Mart, inc.
Fine, I guess I don't support the 2nd amendment. I'll retract that and state that I support gun ownership rights but do not support missile ownership rights.
That a better explanation of my views?
edit: And the reason it "computes" for me is that I don't see limiting where you carry a weapon to be an infringement of your rights. You can choose not to fly on an airliner if you want to hang onto your gun. Or you can just check it with your luggage and not have it in the cabin. It's your choice to give it up temporarily for the safety of travel.
-
You realize that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to a mid-easter oil tycoon..... right? So why bring it up?
And I'm glad to know you don't support gun bans, but your position, in and of itself, by definition, is supporting banning of guns/weapons that you are not comfortable with. Isn't that a contradiction of sorts?
Yes. Guns SHOULD be allowed on planes. Had they been, 9/11 may have been avoided. Guns should be allowed everywhere, IMHO. I have no issues with owning/carrying anything. Use it to infringe on someone elses rights in any way and we're going to have a major problem however.
And I know that will result in the "what about schools?" or "what about hospitals?" or "what about (insert emotinoally-driven location here)???" type of knee jerk reactions form many people. I'm kind of black and white on this one, I admit... the 2nd guarantees our RIGHT to bear arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," IIRC... so isn't your position, however logical and common sensical you find it, technically a violation of the 2nd?
The poster in question claims to understand the 2nd Amendment. But he totally misses the point on the "keep and bear part of it.
-
Ummm... Customs will confiscate a lot of things... legal or not... if they want.
You're getting pissy. That tells me that you don't really have a logical foundation for your position; just emotional. You asked to have a civil conversation, so maybe play by your own rules?
So do you support CCW? Do you support CCW everywhere? What other limitations would you like to see on ownership/carry/usage?
-
Even if he misses, bulletholes will cause the cabin to depressurize
It will?
Feel free to prove it.
-
It will?
Feel free to prove it.
BIG OLD MYTH BUSTERS SPECIAL ON IT!!!
BUSTED!
-
edit: And the reason it "computes" for me is that I don't see limiting where you carry a weapon to be an infringement of your rights.
Then you have no ****ing idea of what a RIGHT is.
-
Customs would not confiscate the weapon if it were legal. Or maybe the theoretical immigrating oil tycoon would just buy it here at Nuke-Mart, inc.
Fine, I guess I don't support the 2nd amendment. I'll retract that and state that I support gun ownership rights but do not support missile ownership rights.
That a better explanation of my views?
edit: And the reason it "computes" for me is that I don't see limiting where you carry a weapon to be an infringement of your rights. You can choose not to fly on an airliner if you want to hang onto your gun. Or you can just check it with your luggage and not have it in the cabin. It's your choice to give it up temporarily for the safety of travel.
So a guy from Abu Daubi with an ICBM on his private plane flies into LAX and tries to declare it. What would happen in a true 2nd Amendment America?
Lets try to keep it theoretical.
dumb ass.
:bird:
-
BIG OLD MYTH BUSTERS SPECIAL ON IT!!!
BUSTED!
Exactly.
But facts don't seem to actually matter to some people.
-
:popcorn:
-
edit: And the reason it "computes" for me is that I don't see limiting where you carry a weapon to be an infringement of your rights. You can choose not to fly on an airliner if you want to hang onto your gun. Or you can just check it with your luggage and not have it in the cabin. It's your choice to give it up temporarily for the safety of travel.
Yes/no. If I engage in a private contract with you, knowing that I would not be able to carry, I would have voluntarily surrendured that right as part of the contract. But that would have to be known components of the contract up front.
I could argue, however, using the current Lib model that gov't subsidies = gov't management, that since almost all airlines receive tax breaks and/or subsidies, that the gov't has no right to limit my right to "BEAR" arms, and therefore, it is indeed an infringement upon my right to not be able to carry.
Explain to me how me giving up my right to carry has any impact on safe travel for me or anyone else on the plane.
-
BTW...
bkg, change your avatar. It makes you look like deuce.
-
BTW...
bkg, change your avatar. It makes you look like deuce.
:rotf: :rotf:
FIXED!
-
Yes/no. If I engage in a private contract with you, knowing that I would not be able to carry, I would have voluntarily surrendured that right as part of the contract. But that would have to be known components of the contract up front.
I could argue, however, using the current Lib model that gov't subsidies = gov't management, that since almost all airlines receive tax breaks and/or subsidies, that the gov't has no right to limit my right to "BEAR" arms, and therefore, it is indeed an infringement upon my right to not be able to carry.
Explain to me how me giving up my right to carry has any impact on safe travel for me or anyone else on the plane.
You are forgetting one major thing here.
It's not just the airlines that ban guns on flights. It is now banned by the TSA aka federal government agency.
-
You are forgetting one major thing here.
It's not just the airlines that ban guns on flights. It is now banned by the TSA aka federal government agency.
Which, IMHO, violates the 2nd.
-
Which, IMHO, violates the 2nd.
It does IMO also.
But then, unlike deuce, I know the meaning of the word "right" as used in the context of the 2nd Amendment.
-
It does IMO also.
But then, unlike deuce, I know the meaning of the word "right" as used in the context of the 2nd Amendment.
I would suspect that Duece believes it's his right to feel safe... and that he doesn't feel safe knowing someone has a weapon he doesn't approve of.
-
I would suspect that Duece believes it's his right to feel safe... and that he doesn't feel safe knowing someone has a weapon he doesn't approve of.
The safest place that deuce will ever be is in a place where he is surrounded by US citizens armed with guns.
When was the last time you ever heard of an attack at a gun show?
:cheersmate:
-
The safest place that deuce will ever be is in a place where he is surrounded by US citizens armed with guns.
When was the last time you ever heard of an attack at a gun show?
:cheersmate:
an armed society is a polite society.
-
an armed society is a polite society.
So it is said.
-
Once again I'm getting screamed at for a slight difference of opinion. I've tried to be polite, but you guys seem unable to do the same.
Nuclear ICBM guy at customs? In a "true 2nd" society, nobody would do anything because he has a right to carry that weapon around in his truck, right? Shooting him would be a crime because he hasn't done anything wrong. OR, someone pulls a gun and tries to stop him, he detonates the weapon and kills a few hundred thousand travelers and citizens.
Holes in the cabin WILL cause a pressurization leak. It's simple physics. What they will not cause is explosive decompression like you see in the movies, that's what mythbusters was getting at. Depressurization is still a danger to the passengers. A small caliber handgun might not penetrate the skin easily, but any rifle could easily go through.
An armed society is a polite society, but some scenarios would allow for one nutjob to cause catastrophic damage. If we can carry guns on a plane, how about explosives? Is C4 covered under the 2nd? One button push and the plane comes down to earth in pieces. Or maybe a tourist has it in his pack when given a tour of a nuclear power plant.
Some weapons people can't protect themselves from no matter how well armed the society is. If every man, woman, and child carried an AR-15, I could still take out dozens if not hundreds of people at a football game with explosives in my beer cooler.
-
Once again I'm getting screamed at for a slight difference of opinion. I've tried to be polite, but you guys seem unable to do the same.
You wanna try this again? I've been incredibly polite. I resent your insinuation, actually. No one is screaming at you, so please stop with the Rules for Radicals debate model.
-
You wanna try this again? I've been incredibly polite. I resent your insinuation, actually. No one is screaming at you, so please stop with the Rules for Radicals debate model.
Dutch508:
you are one stupid mother ****er.
DefiantSix:
The point, dipstick,
Dutch508:
Shit, can you not read what I wrote?
Dutch508:
Damm I HATE stupid assed retards.
Dutch508:
Thats because you are a stupid dumb-assed mother ****er.
NHSparky:
God, what an asshat.
Dutch508:
what a ******* retard.
rich_t
Then you have no ******* idea of what a RIGHT is.
Dutch508:
dumb ass.
bkg, you in particular have been very polite and well-reasoned. You've given me a few interesting points to think about. (about the TSA in particular)
Clearly much of the flames are originating from one poster, but there's been a pretty consistent trend with this thread.
-
So ignore it and step up. It's the intertoobs - people are passionate, knowledgeable, interested in discussion. But also play by the rules you want others to be managed under. You've also lashed out in some forms after asking for a polite conversation, so I'm not sure you can necessarily hold others accountable if you're not also going to call yourself out, ya know?
You and I do disagree. No doubt about that. The problem with your position is that you move the goal post (your analogy). And when YOU move it, then someone else who is slightly more nervous about guns than you may want to move it slightly more. And because you've set the precidence, there is nothing to stop them from moving that post using the same arguments that you have. So if you're unable to put a stake in the ground and say "a right is a right. period." then you must accept the consequences that while you've moved the goal an inch, someone else will move it a mile using your exact same argument. Where are you willing to let it go?
-
NEVER attempt to put me into the nice person catagory- **** head.
-
If I might chime in, Deuce, I think you're making several logical mistakes here.
1.) You argue from the extreme at nearly every turn. A nuclear-tipped ICBM being carried into the U.S. on some rich Saudi's private plane is not a scenario from which we should begin, agreed? Even with all the "nuances" involved in such a hypothetical situation, it's a moot point. Said Saudi has no rights outlined in the Constitution. None. But even beyond the absurdist view, we can't find common ground if your immediate response is to think of the most unlikely and objectionable scenario possible. Keep it grounded in reality, like your explosives in the beer cooler example.
2.) You're confusing issues. When I get on a plane, I've entered into a contract for services with the airline. If one of the airline's conditions for traveling on their craft is that no passenger may carry a weapon on his or her person, I can either comply with that condition or I can find another mode of travel. It's entirely my choice. Where my objection comes into play is when the TSA, a federal agency, makes that condition. The government's ability to infringe on my right to bear arms is explicitly denied by the Constitution, regardless of the current situation. In short, the TSA's regulation of air travel in this way is unconstitutional, by definition.
3.) The rest of your scenarios are faulty simply because regulating gun rights does nothing to provide a solution. A man carries explosives in his beer cooler? Surely someone so unstable can and will do so with or without a government ban on private ownership of AR-15s, no? A man takes a hunting rifle and shoots up a mall? Same thing.
To summarize, you seem to only support gun rights within reason. The problem with that outlook is two-fold:
1.) Who's reason is paramount? The supporters of the Brady Bill? Members of a Michigan militia? Obama's? The NRA's?
2.) The Founding Fathers made no such distinction. They simply said the Second Amendment was necessary to the security of Free State. They fully expected citizens to be armed with the latest technology, as they all had been.
-
2.) The Founding Fathers made no such distinction. They simply said the Second Amendment was necessary to the security of Free State. They fully expected citizens to be armed with the latest technology, as they all had been.
I want a laser blaster from Star Wars ! Maybe I should work on building one. They haven't been outlawed in Illinois, yet.
-
So if you're unable to put a stake in the ground and say "a right is a right. period." then you must accept the consequences that while you've moved the goal an inch, someone else will move it a mile using your exact same argument. Where are you willing to let it go?
Well said, sir. Freedoms and rights don't disappear in the middle of the night. They're infringed upon steadily, with hundreds of attacks over the course of time, until we wake up and find they're all but gone.
-
I want a laser blaster from Star Wars ! Maybe I should work on building one. They haven't been outlawed in Illinois, yet.
More power to ya. If you can get it produced for less than several billion, maybe we can work out a deal!
-
Quite honestly, I believe that ANYBODY with a permit to carry or CCW in some states should be able to carry on ANY aircraft. I WOULD like for them to have the appropriate load/ bullet for an aircraft. To reinforce Deuce's comment about decompression, a bullet WILL cause decompression, just not explosive decompression. Either way, that aircraft would have to descend below 12,000 ft to be safe and avoid hypoxia. Such a maneuver could be dangerous, depending on the situation. And furthermore, I would draw the line at nukes. Anything else below the nuclear capability level should be ok to own or possess. Tanks, grenades, stingers, SAMs, etc, should ALL be allowed to the average law abiding citizen. What I would like to see is that if ANYBODY committed a crime with said weapons is an instant death penalty. The only "crime" that would be excluded would be a crime* committed against the Government during a rebellion.
*While our founders intended the Government to be reigned in by us citizens through rebellion, they have made it a crime to overthrow the Government. Isn't that contrary to the Constitution ??
-
*While our founders intended the Government to be reigned in by us citizens through rebellion, they have made it a crime to overthrow the Government. Isn't that contrary to the Constitution ??
Perhaps, if government becomes tyranny, the Constitution as the reigning legal document is out the window. The Founders allowed for the possibility of rebellion as recourse, but after that, all bets are off.
-
*While our founders intended the Government to be reigned in by us citizens through rebellion, they have made it a crime to overthrow the Government. Isn't that contrary to the Constitution ??
Answer = yes
-
*While our founders intended the Government to be reigned in by us citizens through rebellion, they have made it a crime to overthrow the Government. Isn't that contrary to the Constitution ??
The founders also established that the highest level of government under their system was the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN. They are the level of government to which all others are answerable. Therefore if the bureaucratic construction at the federal level is operating in violation of it's mandated limits - enumerated specifically in the US Constitution - then the higher level authority - the citizenry at large (militia, in the vocabulary of the founders) - has an obligation to remove the offending body by whatever means are required and restore the individual liberties being usurped.
-
The founders also established that the highest level of government under their system was the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN. They are the level of government to which all others are answerable. Therefore if the bureaucratic construction at the federal level is operating in violation of it's mandated limits - enumerated specifically in the US Constitution - then the higher level authority - the citizenry at large (militia, in the vocabulary of the founders) - has an obligation to remove the offending body by whatever means are required and restore the individual liberties being usurped.
However, should a citizen or a group of citizens attempt to do that, they would be in violation of the law. I don't know who wrote and passed that law or when it happened. Besides, I only know of a very small few ready to throw out these usurpers.
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or
teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any
such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts
to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,
group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or
violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any
such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes
thereof -
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/115/2385
All in all, that entire law violates not only the First Amendment, but the entire concept of the founding fathers. It appears that this law was passed sometime around 1940....... go figure....
The Smith Act was a product of America's prewar anxieties. Proposed by Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia, the measure was one of several antisubversive bills introduced in Congress during 1939. A modified version was adopted by both houses on 22 June 1940, as Title I of the Alien Registration Act.
http://www.answers.com/topic/smith-act
-
I think we're more in agreement here than it appears, Thor.
What you've got is US Code Title 18, aka the Federal law defining and setting penalty for treason, something already defined explicitly in the US Constitution. Even though this is wishful thinking these days, the US Constitution has to trump federal law, because the federal law would have no binding authority without the US Constitution.
That the Title 18 version of Treason includes a whole bunch of things in it's definition which were explicitly forbidden by the founders only reinforces the fact that it is a bureaucratic construct - aborted onto the law books by another Progressive closet Marxist - that can and should be swept aside by the superior governing authority in this land; the citizen-at-large militia. Yes, the elected officers and their bureaucrats in the federal government are gonna scream and cry and call us traitors when the time comes to forcibly punt them from the people's offices. I expect nothing less from them. The volume with which they call us traitors will not make it any more true, however.
I understand a whole lot of government officials called my forefathers 'traitor' some 235 odd years ago, as well. It's just words.
-
I wonder what Judge Andrew Napolitano would say about Title 18 ??