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.
April 15, 2013 - Boston Marathon Bombing - Boston, MA - 3 killed, 140+ injured, 17 critical, 25 serious - not a single firearm used.
I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions in post #1069 and to point out where I lied about you as asked in post #1074 by the way. Don't get to sidetracked before you finish the conversation.
April 19, 1995 - Oklahoma City Bombing - Oklahoma City, OK - 168 killed, 680+ injured - not a single firearm used.
Gun powder is available at any sporting goods store, when they have some in stock. It's pretty hard to come by right now. Tannerite is available through the mail in quantities up to 50 pounds. It's illegal to posses more than 50 pounds without applicable licenses but 50 will send an old washer over 100 feet in the air. There are dozens of videos of people having fun doing that.
The family friend who was beaten to death by her own daughter with a pipe wrench? Not a WHACK and then a "what did I do?" type thing. 24 confirmed blows as this woman dragged herself through the the house. If you want to control everything that is dangerous, then where does it stop? Blunt objects over one pound?
Basically, we are "guilty" of being a potential threat until we prove otherwise. The complete opposite of the foundation of our country.
Look up the meaning of "regulated" from the late 1700's. In the context of the 2nd Amendment, it means that the militia should be well trained and in good running order. The meaning of regulate has changed dramatically since the Constitution was written. It was never intended to mean that the federal government could control some aspect of our lives.
Suddenly we have to consider what terms meant in the late 1700s?
Really? How about you consider the term "militia," then? Because that term was used in a way that would absolutely preclude gun ownership by private citizens now. Militias were comprised of private citizens to defend against foreign attacks in the absence of a standing army. The Framers used that term because there was no standing army, as they had a distrust of standing armies.
Well, now we have a standing army, so by today's standards, there is no need for "militias" as defined in the 1700s. As the 2nd Amendment specifically mentions well-regulated militias, you certainly are fortunate as a gun-owner that the Heller decision didn't swing on 18th-Century American English.
Point is, you don't get to play the "but it was written back then and applied to how things were done back then" card only when it suits your agenda. The Constitution was written in such a way that it could, and should, be considered a living document, one that would not set in stone an 18th-Century way of life, but whose interpretation would evolve along with the circumstances of future generations.
Suddenly we have to consider what terms meant in the late 1700s?
Really? How about you consider the term "militia," then? Because that term was used in a way that would absolutely preclude gun ownership by private citizens now. Militias were comprised of private citizens to defend against foreign attacks in the absence of a standing army. The Framers used that term because there was no standing army, as they had a distrust of standing armies.
Well, now we have a standing army, so by today's standards, there is no need for "militias" as defined in the 1700s. As the 2nd Amendment specifically mentions well-regulated militias, you certainly are fortunate as a gun-owner that the Heller decision didn't swing on 18th-Century American English.
Point is, you don't get to play the "but it was written back then and applied to how things were done back then" card only when it suits your agenda. The Constitution was written in such a way that it could, and should, be considered a living document, one that would not set in stone an 18th-Century way of life, but whose interpretation would evolve along with the circumstances of future generations.
If you want to play the game that way, then the 10th and 11th Amendments combined with the 2nd Amendment would prohibit the Federal government from passing any gun laws whatsoever.
Suddenly we have to consider what terms meant in the late 1700s?
Really? How about you consider the term "militia," then? Because that term was used in a way that would absolutely preclude gun ownership by private citizens now. Militias were comprised of private citizens to defend against foreign attacks in the absence of a standing army. The Framers used that term because there was no standing army, as they had a distrust of standing armies.
Well, now we have a standing army, so by today's standards, there is no need for "militias" as defined in the 1700s. As the 2nd Amendment specifically mentions well-regulated militias, you certainly are fortunate as a gun-owner that the Heller decision didn't swing on 18th-Century American English.
Point is, you don't get to play the "but it was written back then and applied to how things were done back then" card only when it suits your agenda. The Constitution was written in such a way that it could, and should, be considered a living document, one that would not set in stone an 18th-Century way of life, but whose interpretation would evolve along with the circumstances of future generations.
When we're talking a document written in the 18th century it certainly helps to know what the words meant when it was written.
Moreover, if you have any understanding of grammar, you'd understand the only important part is "the right of the people...," as the "a well regulated..." portion does not contain the right it protects. It's a statement of the purpose for the right being protected.
Since one of the purposes of the second amendment is to counter the danger of a standing army, having a standing army only increases the need for it. The militia consists of everyone capable of bearing arms. Already addressed by the SCOTUS. Look up the Militia Acts President Washington signed into law, which required all free males to own a firearm.
If you want to play the game that way, then the 10th and 11th Amendments combined with the 2nd Amendment would prohibit the Federal government from passing any gun laws whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
When we're talking a document written in the 18th century it certainly helps to know what the words meant when it was written.
Moreover, if you have any understanding of grammar, you'd understand the only important part is "the right of the people...," as the "a well regulated..." portion does not contain the right it protects. It's a statement of the purpose for the right being protected.
Since one of the purposes of the second amendment is to counter the danger of a standing army, having a standing army only increases the need for it. The militia consists of everyone capable of bearing arms. Already addressed by the SCOTUS. Look up the Militia Acts President Washington signed into law, which required all free males to own a firearm.
ZZZZZOOOOOOOOOM!
^^^^^This was my point flying oh-so-high over your heads.
April 15, 2013 - Boston Marathon Bombing - Boston, MA - 3 killed, 140+ injured, 17 critical, 25 serious - not a single firearm used.
I'm sure the family of Sean Collier appreciates your insistence on leaving his fatality out of the terrorists' activities this week. He was shot, you know. Nice of you to disrespect a fallen police officer that way.
Regardless, you're simply pointing out that materials that go into explosives should be controlled just like firearms, to the extent possible. That's fine with me. I'm not saying that the only new measures needed are with regard to firearms, but rather making clear that added safety measures are necessary, and more importantly, that your personal desire to assert privileges as rights is without merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions in post #1069 and to point out where I lied about you as asked in post #1074 by the way. Don't get to sidetracked before you finish the conversation.
I'm surely not here to rehash why gun control is needed. You know why, so the only reasonable motivation for asking me to rehash it is to give you and excuse to rationalize your objections, and to waste my time. I will answer sincere questions, questions that are a reflections of really wanting to know the answers the questions because you acknowledge you don't know. I hardly ever pander to leading, loaded, or cynical questions intended simply to distract attention away from the moral imperatives I'm raising.
This is how a conscientious Republican responds to increasing gun violence in our society:
Quote:
Gov. Chris Christie unveiled gun control and violence prevention measures that are as comprehensive as they are ambitious.
Governor Chris Christie announces a plan to strengthen existing gun laws and background checks, bolster criminal penalties and treat the root causes of mass violence.
Christie acknowledges there is no way to prevent all violence in our society, but he says it is the job of government to question, to scrutinize and to demand more in an attempt to address the problem.
The plan calls for expanding New Jersey’s already strict gun control laws, expanding government-funded mental health treatment, making it more difficult for kids buy or rent violent video games, requiring that would-be gun owners show government-issued IDs and bolstering penalties for gun-related crimes.
Regardless, you're simply pointing out that materials that go into explosives should be controlled just like firearms, to the extent possible. That's fine with me.
You're going to regulate charcoal, sulpher and salt peter? Good luck with that. The Constitution is fine just as it is. Gun grabbing apologists aren't going to take away our rights. Stop messing with our rights.
Christie is done as a Republican. He and Powell should just admit that they are Democrats and be honest about it. Take McCain with them for good measure.
I'm sure the family of Sean Collier appreciates your insistence on leaving his fatality out of the terrorists' activities this week. He was shot, you know. Nice of you to disrespect a fallen police officer that way.
Regardless, you're simply pointing out that materials that go into explosives should be controlled just like firearms, to the extent possible. That's fine with me. I'm not saying that the only new measures needed are with regard to firearms, but rather making clear that added safety measures are necessary, and more importantly, that your personal desire to assert privileges as rights is without merit.
I'm surely not here to rehash why gun control is needed. You know why, so the only reasonable motivation for asking me to rehash it is to give you and excuse to rationalize your objections, and to waste my time. I will answer sincere questions, questions that are a reflections of really wanting to know the answers the questions because you acknowledge you don't know. I hardly ever pander to leading, loaded, or cynical questions intended simply to distract attention away from the moral imperatives I'm raising.
Oh, you have all the answers do you? The entire Senate couldn't agree but YOU "know" what's to be done. I have news for you. You not only don't know, you have no idea of how little you do know and that is probably even more dangerous than total ignorance.
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.
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.
