Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-19-2013, 11:14 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,495,508 times
Reputation: 8094

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhemi View Post
Background checks are conducted. Think the evil doers are going to comply? Really? Do you?
Do all the background checks you want, track every gun, gps the damn things, and guess what, people will still kill. The criminal's and mental people DONT CARE ABOUT OUR LAWS! Thats why they are CRIMINALS!

The bill proposed in CO about high capacity magazines is stupid. They want serials and dates printed on the new ones. Existing high capacity mags will still be legal. Think for a minute, what good is this going to do? Really, THINK.

I'll just buy them elsewhere and say I've owned them.

Seriously, pull your head out and think on your own for a minute. Its the people, not the guns, knives, bombs, bows/arrows, etc.
What do you mean "think"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2013, 11:15 AM
 
Location: San Francisco
8,996 posts, read 10,431,613 times
Reputation: 5751
So in other words, there's no point in regulating either the supply of weapons or the possession thereof by anyone whatsoever, even criminals and the insane.

Which means that we have to accept that the occasional slaughter of schoolchildren is just the price we have to accept for living in a free society.

Right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 11:16 AM
 
8,289 posts, read 13,530,858 times
Reputation: 5018
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
The moment you bring up "gun violence", you have already showed you don't understand. There's no "gun violence"; there's just violence. The term "gun violence" is coined to attack on the right to keep and bear arms. Does it really matter if you are murdered by a gun, a hammer or a knife? If for some reason we eliminated all guns, yes we would have eliminated "gun violence" but would you be happier to know that you would be murdered by hammers and knives then?

Again, there's no "gun violence", just violence.

So is ownership of gun fueling the violence? Not legal gun ownership for certain. Illegal owned guns are the ones fueling the violence; however, somehow some people get this brilliant idea that if we banned legal gun ownership, it would somehow fixed the problem caused by illegal gun ownership.

Nowadays people use all kind of weird stuff to justify their own motive. Regardless what the founding fathers meant, we together to argue for more freedom for us not less. That should be our principle!

So what does "well regulated" mean? I think a rational person would know the "well regulated militia" is the means for "being necessary the security of a free state". For this very reason, "the right of the people", note, not the militia, "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The whole ideas is for the people to have arms so that they can form a well regulated militia to protect the security of a free state. Now, "well regulated" in my mind would mean "well armed."
You make some very valid points however I was adressing the issue of the meaning of a "well regulated Militia" under the Second Amendment which basically means protecting the soveriegnty of the colonial states from England.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,749,461 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
At the time of the constitutions writing, Regulated meant armed.
Couple of instances using "regulate" as the word in the US Constitution:
-To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
-To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Now, let us apply your idea of the word:
-To arm Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
-To coin Money, arm the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Ridiculous. Unless...

"The passions, therefore, not the reason, of the public would sit in judgment. But it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and arm the government. The passions ought to be controlled and armed by the government."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 49 (1788)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 11:26 AM
 
Location: MS
4,396 posts, read 4,894,284 times
Reputation: 1559
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff View Post
I don't want to take your guns... I swear. I do want large clips to be limited and mandatory background checks to be expanded.
You can have them. But I'll keep my standard capacity 40 round, 30 round and 17 round magazines.

Clips make loading a magazine easier. Before you ban something, I think you should at least learn about it. Firearms, ammo, weapons, gear reviews, 2nd Amendment issues, etc...: Clip vs. Magazine: A Lesson in Firearm Terminology

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff View Post
Since the second amendment uses the words "well regulated", and regulation has before been affirmed by the Supreme Court-- How can anyone claim that it would be unconstitutional to limit large clips and institute mandator background checks?
Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

You can also read Federalist 42 and see how "regulate" is described in regulating interstate commerce. The states with seaports often added taxes to the articles of export and import that passed through their states to the other states putting the inland states at a disadvantage. This commerce clause was included to relieve the states of this disadvantage. That's it.

To sum it up in a way that is applicable today - the word regulate in the Constitution means to make something run smoothly. It does not mean take complete control of something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 11:29 AM
 
3,740 posts, read 3,061,376 times
Reputation: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff View Post
I don't want to take your guns... I swear. I do want large clips to be limited and mandatory background checks to be expanded.

Since the second amendment uses the words "well regulated", and regulation has before been affirmed by the Supreme Court-- How can anyone claim that it would be unconstitutional to limit large clips and institute mandator background checks?
"Regulated" in the language of the day, had nothing to do with regulations as we speak today. It meant well provision, equipped or tuned. A Well-regulated larder had plenty of good food. A well-regulated clock kept good time,

A well regulated citizenry had plenty of privately owned guns to use to come to the defense of their country with (from both internal and external threats).

The Bill of Rights (of which the 2nd Amendment is part of) is soley about preserving rights of the people, and has nothing to do with organis of government, military or otherwise.

Wny can't you accept this? Are you so trusting of those who lust for power as to leave yourself completely powerLESS, and them compeltely powerFULL.

Your right to press will do precious little with armed troops guarding the doors to the pressroom, or armed guards blocking the doors to your church-of-choosing, or armed guards dragging you off to the dungeon for saying words that convety thoughts they don't like.

In otherwords, to the dis/unarmed, there are no rights, just privilege labeled as a right, but revocable at will, and without resistance, by the ruling class.

Wise up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,749,461 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Rossi View Post
"Regulated" in the language of the day, had nothing to do with regulations as we speak today.
Wrong.

"Regulate Commerce" carried the same meaning then, as it does today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 11:34 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,495,508 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013 View Post
So in other words, there's no point in regulating either the supply of weapons or the possession thereof by anyone whatsoever, even criminals and the insane.

Which means that we have to accept that the occasional slaughter of schoolchildren is just the price we have to accept for living in a free society.

Right?
Nobody is saying that criminals and legally mentally insane should have such access.

Nobody is saying slaughter of our children is acceptable. Those who commit these crimes have already been punished, have they not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Walton County, GA
1,242 posts, read 3,469,133 times
Reputation: 1049
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
What do you mean "think"?
Think, propose all these laws in your head. Think how they will work or will not work. Think that you can pass the background check and what will stop you from snapping? Just think about it. Its not the guns. People were killing before guns were even invented. Think about how a criminal acts when they know THEY have a gun and YOU dont. Think think think.

Think logically, not emotionally. Think for yourself, not what others tell you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 11:37 AM
 
29,059 posts, read 14,387,573 times
Reputation: 14272
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013 View Post
So in other words, there's no point in regulating either the supply of weapons or the possession thereof by anyone whatsoever, even criminals and the insane.

Which means that we have to accept that the occasional slaughter of schoolchildren is just the price we have to accept for living in a free society.

Right?
Just like we have to accept the occasional slaughter of a family by a drunk driver, a drug addict....etc.
Stop trying to justify your point by using the deaths of the innocent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top