U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-13-2016, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Lakewood Ranch, FL
5,311 posts, read 8,119,905 times
Reputation: 6376

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty View Post
Did you or BNBR even read the post that wanted to require military experience to obtain a gun? Talk about talking in circles...
Of course, I did.

Fredesch said: "I am always for restrictions on guns. If you weren't in the army, marines, military special forces or former police (local, state or federal), you have no business having a gun. If you want to shoot guns join the army or marines."

markjames68 said: "Interesting position you take, but not one that the 2nd Amendment agrees with." I and others explained, I thought clearly, why this statement is accurate.

You said: "That depends on whether you believe all 27 words matter, not just the latter half." Again, we explained how the amendment language has been incorrectly interpreted by many, including you apparently, and myself at one time, that the right to keep and bear arms is dependently connected to being a member of the military. The truth is that there is a difference between a militia and a standing army, but more importantly, being a member (or not) of either has no bearing on the right in the first place. This distinction was demonstrated by the SCOTUS through their decision that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not solely dependent on being a member of a militia or anything else.

The only one talking in circles, from my point of view, appears to be you.

If I am misinterpreting your meaning or your point, I am open to discussion. Just try expressing yourself without seeming like a jerk, OK?

 
Old 02-13-2016, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 13,199,461 times
Reputation: 6006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Bear View Post
One small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.


It will take decades to rid our country of this scourge, but it will happen. There simply is no place for guns in a modern society (oh, except to defend yourself against an iguana!).
When you can guarantee me that there are no criminals with guns and no bullets left in the country and that customs is good enough to ensure that no guns can get in to the country, I may be willing to give up my firearms
 
Old 02-13-2016, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Lakewood Ranch, FL
5,311 posts, read 8,119,905 times
Reputation: 6376
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty View Post
And the fourteenth amendment still has nothing to do with the discussion at hand regardless of what sparks you to climb on the soapbox.
If the discussion at hand involves the 2A, you are wrong. Heller was in 2008 and said that being a member of a militia is not necessary to the right to keep and bear arms, in DC. McDonald in 2010 extended that ruling to all the states via the 14th amendment.

In the decision, the Court said:
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.[3]


 
Old 02-13-2016, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 13,199,461 times
Reputation: 6006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredesch View Post
Maybe folks that like to target practice can keep them at the gun club. Taking guns home is not a good thing. People drink, have kids at home and some folks get in arguments with their neighbors. I had a roommate in the army who kept wanting me to loan him a $100 so he could by buy a gun at a pawn shop and get even with the person that ripped him off/insulted him/had more to drink than him...

We had friends in another unit which would pull up to a light and aim a fake pistol at the folks in the car next to them. They did that until another driver brought up his gun. There are idiots that should never have guns.

You point of instances where a. guns are being handled illegally. b. Guns in the hands of people that do not know how to properly use one. c. Guns being used to kill people that get in arguments.

In most cases, someone intent on using deadly force upon someone will certainly use what ever means is readily available. Knives, bats, kitchen chairs, hammers, screwdrivers, drapery cord, most home appliances all could be used in anger to kill another. Those items are fairly portable and one can use them outaside their home to "get even".

Guns are SUPPOSED to be out of reach of those with prior felonies, those who carry firearms illegally, those that are willing to illegally brandish a firearm ( a permit holder breaks the current FL law if his jacket exposes his/her firearm). If "kids" are shown what a firearm does they would be much less apt to grab one or handle one they find somewhere. A trip to the gun range would take away the desire to play with a real gun. Also prudent safety actions of the firearms owner would prevent most accidental shootings.

What about long guns, shot guns. Ban them too so hunting stops?

If you had "friends" in the military playing with toy guns that person should have been reported to his commanding officer because that person has mental defects.

Let's face the facts. Most of the trigger pulls in this country are done by a criminal. Criminals have no conscience as the will easily kill you even if you didnt resist their efforts. Criminals are predisposed to shooting erratically which causes people not intended to be victims to die.

I would much rather own and know how to use a firearm to protect myself, my family or my friends than die by the hand of a stranger. I would much rather protect my home if forcible entry of my home or vehicle than submit to the demands of someone wanting to harm me, my family or friends.

If you do not like guns ten I strongly recommend that you relocate to a country where they are banned such as the U.K. where guns are banned.

10/15
"A man has been charged with attempted murder over the shooting of a police officer following an armed ice operation on Thursday, said Scotland Yard. Besides the attempted murder of the officer, Tyrone Benjamin Henry, who is from east London, has also been accused of being in possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm."

FACT:
Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England in June 2010. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British history.

Banning firearms does not stop criminals from obtaining or using them. Firearms can be constructed from simple materials. "Zip Guns" were very popular a few decades ago when you couldnt buy a good gun on the streets of American cities.

NYC has one of the toughest gun laws in the country.
June 4, 2013:
"Mayhem in the city: 25 people shot in 48 hours " NY Daily news.

June 29 2014:
"Four people were killed and another 19 were injured, including a 10-year-old boy walking home from the store, in a wave of shootings over the weekend" WNBC, NY.

Outlawing guns has no effect on their availability. Outlawing firearms would only eliminate guns from the hands of law abiding citizens giving criminals a higher hand then they have now.
 
Old 02-13-2016, 11:40 AM
 
6,814 posts, read 3,793,975 times
Reputation: 14489
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbronston View Post
Of course, I did.

Fredesch said: "I am always for restrictions on guns. If you weren't in the army, marines, military special forces or former police (local, state or federal), you have no business having a gun. If you want to shoot guns join the army or marines."

markjames68 said: "Interesting position you take, but not one that the 2nd Amendment agrees with." I and others explained, I thought clearly, why this statement is accurate.

You said: "That depends on whether you believe all 27 words matter, not just the latter half." Again, we explained how the amendment language has been incorrectly interpreted by many, including you apparently, and myself at one time, that the right to keep and bear arms is dependently connected to being a member of the military. The truth is that there is a difference between a militia and a standing army, but more importantly, being a member (or not) of either has no bearing on the right in the first place. This distinction was demonstrated by the SCOTUS through their decision that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not solely dependent on being a member of a militia or anything else.

The only one talking in circles, from my point of view, appears to be you.

If I am misinterpreting your meaning or your point, I am open to discussion. Just try expressing yourself without seeming like a jerk, OK?
Your assertion that the militia argument has been misinterpreted may have been partially supported by a limited Supreme Court decision but there certainly continues to exist sufficient disagreement even within the current court that a future decision may indicate further limitations are in order particularly as they refer to training and registration.


You sound like a somewhat reasonable person but your use of juvenile name-calling detracts from your argument.
 
Old 02-13-2016, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Lakewood Ranch, FL
5,311 posts, read 8,119,905 times
Reputation: 6376
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty View Post
Your assertion that the militia argument has been misinterpreted may have been partially supported by a limited Supreme Court decision but there certainly continues to exist sufficient disagreement even within the current court that a future decision may indicate further limitations are in order particularly as they refer to training and registration.


You sound like a somewhat reasonable person but your use of juvenile name-calling detracts from your argument.
Well, you hold onto that hope, however tenuous it may be. In the meantime, everything else you've argued has been wrong. Thanks for the "somewhat reasonable person" concession, anyway.
 
Old 02-13-2016, 12:18 PM
 
6,814 posts, read 3,793,975 times
Reputation: 14489
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbronston View Post
If the discussion at hand involves the 2A, you are wrong. Heller was in 2008 and said that being a member of a militia is not necessary to the right to keep and bear arms, in DC. McDonald in 2010 extended that ruling to all the states via the 14th amendment.

In the decision, the Court said:
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.[3]



The Fourteenth Amendment was brought into this discussion by BNBR who specifically cited just six words which refer to citizenship and have no specific relation to the matter at hand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BNBR View Post
It also depends if you know historical context and grammar. But I have a feeling people like you conveniently leave out the middle part of the first sentence in the 14th amendment, too.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.


I may have been remiss in not continuing to refer to the specifics of his claims as he never replied to my question regarding his "people like you" reference but his focus on such a limited clause is puzzling and largely irrelevant. Many parts of the Constitution relate to one another but to introduce such tangential matters only tends to derail the discussion.
 
Old 02-14-2016, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Ormond Beach, FL
1,338 posts, read 1,381,721 times
Reputation: 1226
Default Scalia

Scalia created the notion that the second amendment applies to individual. "An avid hunter and a member of his high school rifle team, Justice Scalia wrote the courtís 5-to-4 ruling that held for the first time that the Second Amendment afforded a right to gun ownership unrelated to military service."

Canada has strict gun laws has more wide open spaces and has about 1/7 the rate of firearms related murders as the US. We need to go with the traditional pre Scalia interpretation of the second amendment.
 
Old 02-14-2016, 07:45 PM
 
25 posts, read 33,632 times
Reputation: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredesch View Post
Scalia created the notion that the second amendment applies to individual. "An avid hunter and a member of his high school rifle team, Justice Scalia wrote the courtís 5-to-4 ruling that held for the first time that the Second Amendment afforded a right to gun ownership unrelated to military service."

Canada has strict gun laws has more wide open spaces and has about 1/7 the rate of firearms related murders as the US. We need to go with the traditional pre Scalia interpretation of the second amendment.
The 14th amendment applies to the first 10 amendments, I believe the 2nd Amendment is number 2 which is within this 1-10 interval, just saying.

I don't care what Canada has or does not have.
 
Old 02-15-2016, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Lakewood Ranch, FL
5,311 posts, read 8,119,905 times
Reputation: 6376
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.

Some want to ignore the history, ignore the reason for the 2A in the first place, and ignore the Supreme Court decisions. They want to focus on the first clause of the sentence or mock the notion that people have a right to protect themselves from other people with bad intentions, including a government run amuck. They make ridiculous claims that it only applies to 18th century weapons. However, they conveniently ignore the last part of the sentence which is, arguably, the most significant. The people who wrote this understood that they were in unchartered territory with this right but saw it as being so essential to preserving all other rights, they deliberately included language saying that nothing was to ever interfere with it.

It may seem cliche but truth is never too cliche to be repeated. The problem is not the second amendment or guns, themselves. Guns are not inherently dangerous. It's the people who choose to use them dangerously that should be the focus of our efforts. I wish all this nonsense would go away so we can finally deal with the real issue. And, groups like the NRA are as equally intransigent as the liberal Democrats. There are plenty of fundamental rights that are still subject to regulation. We should strive for better education and responsible use even if it involves mandatory training with the purchase or transfer of a firearm. There can be exceptions (i.e. father to son, purchase of a similar firearm for which there has already been training, etc.) because that is common sense. We should put away violent offenders for life....period...and stop clogging up our jails and prisons with people for simple drug use (which I despise but those folks need medical help and job training, not prison.) We need a federal law that allows a person who can legally carry a concealed weapon in their own state to legally carry in all other states. We should apply all of our gun laws equally and fully after cleaning out the bad ones (the original subject of this thread), and we need to get back to fully funding mental health facilities while working to remove the stigma associated with it. For pete's sake, so many social stigmas have been broken down in my lifetime that surely this one can be, too.

This is not an impossible problem but the nuts on both sides need to calm down and focus on the real solutions. Everything else is just jibber-jabber. Unfortunately, that is something that Washington is incapable of doing because we keep sending extremists from both sides up there to waste our time and money.

One last thought....this morning I saw on the news that the CIA director said that it was inevitable that we would see ISIS attacks in our country and probably soon. As much as I hate to echo Donald Trump, I think back to the attacks in France. If the security of our free state is put at risk (and that is exactly what these guys, already here, intend for us), we can see once again that the writers of the 2A have given us the tools to remain free. When I think of the expression "American Exceptionalism", this is what I see. A people who can not only govern themselves but who were and are entrusted with the tools to keep that freedom. It's a shame that this is not taught in schools anymore but worse that there are so many who are willing to let it slip away in the name of "progress."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:24 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top