Outlawing guns in the US ...

[Will E Worm]

Re: Legal v. illegal onwership, and the "actual issues" with legal owners ...

Please explain to me how it's illegal.

Why do I have to explain this? :dunno:

It subverts the Constitution.

That's all anyone needs to know.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Legal v. illegal onwership, and the "actual issues" with legal owners ...

To forcibly take their right is illegal. To state their desire to legally repeal an Amendment is not.
Never will be.

As long as a supermajority agrees, per US Constitutional process via vote by the states. Although it's quite ironic that some people want to use the Constitutional process to take away rights.

But, of course, I'm a Libertarian[-Capitalist], which means I don't believe the government can stop people from being irresponsible. I only believe that people should be responsible, and lead by example.

Beyond that, I don't drink (never have), do drugs (never have, totally tell my docs not to prescribe pain relievers, etc...) and so forth. But I don't believe I have any right to say that to others. I do, however, have the expectation for them not to abuse our collective rights.

*cought* patriot act *cought*

I already mentioned that. It's an illegal document.
That needs to be ripped up.
Wether it ever goes into effect, I'll never adhere to it.

Please explain to me how it's illegal.

I do have to second Chef here, not that I think it's "not illegal." It goes to my greatest complain on this board, "it's wrong because I say so, and I won't say anything else, and that should be law."

Portions of the Patriot Act are being executed, just like both W., Clinton, H. Bush, Reagan, etc... Executive Orders that were made into Legislative law by its passing, were prior. The US Supreme Court can only rule against them and declare them Unconstitutional as they violate "Supreme Laws" (typically Constitutional Amendments, or where Common Law -- especially state Common Law guaranteed by their rights and own laws/Constitutions per 10th Amendment).

Just because portions of the Patriot Act may be proven Unconstitutional doesn't mean A) they have been proven and ruled on to be so, and -- more importantly -- B) that they whole document is unenforceable if portions have been.

When you're arguing with "right-wingers," don't be a "left winger." Be an intelligent, detailed citizen and use actual civics in your arguments. That's how "real people" actually get things changed.

 

[Facetious]

^ You're just a good 'ol, down to earth, Lassiez Faire, Golden Rule, Eye for Eye, kind of guy. :hatsoff:

Is that fair to say ?

 

[Member2019]

^ You're just a good 'ol, down to earth, Lassiez Faire

The problem with using the term "lassiez-faire" is that too many people think we have capitalism in this country. Many of our issues have come about because the government already intervenes in too much, from the financial industry to healthcare.

Hell, even the Wikipedia entry does a decent job of trying to break those assumptions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lassiez_faire#United_States

Many people have noted that I often quote Alexander Hamilton. He was a very calculating and brilliant man, and many of his theories have stood the test of time. But that doesn't mean I agree with all of his policies, even if believe many of his theories explain trends.

And I definitely take real issue with Keynesian economics, and the fact that it is an extremely simplistic foundation taught to too many people. Any serious development of a system of equations of rates of rates of change (elementary, 2nd order differential) utterly destroys its reality. The state of the economy at the end of 2000 is a great example of Americans utterly not understanding a thing about rates of rates of change. Keynesian is like saying democracy, and then explaining it with simple majority (which has failed over and over again), instead of looking at a working, Democratic-Republic, with majorities, minorities, supermajorities, compromises in representation, etc...

E.g., I still question the feasibility of a central bank. It's one of the reasons I think of the greatest and true US Presidents (sans what he did to the native Americans) was Andrew Jackson.

Golden Rule

Oh, definitely that.

Eye for Eye

No, not at all there. I'm against capital punishment and against a punishment that is the same as the crime. I do, however, get tired of the "intent" excuse non-sense. Irresponsibility shouldn't be an excuse.

At the same time, I'm tired of the smallest things being felonies these days. We need a new "2nd level felony" that is different. Too many kids, tried as adults, get fucked (in their future career) early on for doing nothing. I've now met several.

I'm tired of both the left and right on many of these issues.

 

[Will E Worm]

Prof Voluptuary, it's illegal, it subverts the Constitution and the other documents that preserve our rights. The only documents I will ever go by.

 

[Facetious]

I've been over this before but it's worth repeating.We are looking at what was written in the 18th century - a different world-with 21st century eyes.
At the time gun ownership was pretty well universal for those who could afford them.There were dangers from wild animals and from other human beings too in days when there was no police force.A gun was as much an everyday item as a horse or a spade.So clearly the Amendment didn't give the right to own a gun as that right already existed.The Militia Act followed soon after and made the intention of the 2nd amendment very clear to those prepared to give it some thought.
The idea of having guns to protect against tyrannical government was put about at the time of the Revolution-the tyrannical government they had in mind was based in London not closer to home.

The Constitution of The United States is neither, malleable nor a "living and breathing" document.
Therefore, I would not be comfortable with a Constitutional Convention.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Prof Voluptuary, it's illegal, it subverts the Constitution and the other documents that preserve our rights. The only documents I will ever go by.

Just because the Constitution (and some unnamed others) are the only documents that you go by, doesn't mean that the entire Patriot Act is illegal.

Saying "it subverts the Constitution" is just as bad as saying "because I said so". So, once again, what exactly makes the entire Patriot Act illegal?

:dunno:

 

[Will E Worm]

The only true laws of America are found in the Constitution, Preamble, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. Not the "Supreme Court". They are to uphold the laws in those four documents. Just like the President is sworn to uphold. Not to make an unpatriot act. Like Bush did.

Anything else is unconstitutional and treason.

Federal surveillance and searches of Americans without demonstrating probable cause.

The Patriot Act grants the federal government unconstitutional authority to secretly seize library reading lists and other personal records.

Approved a resolution condemning the law as unpatriotic for infringing on privacy rights.

The accusations stem from illegally wiretapping average Americans’ electronic communications, to violating average Americans’ rights to privacy, to violating average Americans’ rights to proper searches and seizures, and finally violating average Americans’ civil liberties.

And on and on....

Patriot Act Abuses

Illegal Electronic, Warrantless Searches

Patriot Act Illegal

Not Constitutional

 

[Member2019]

Prof Voluptuary, it's illegal, it subverts the Constitution and the other documents that preserve our rights. The only documents I will ever go by.

You didn't read a word I said then.

The only true laws of America are found in the Constitution, Preamble, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. Not the "Supreme Court". They are to uphold the laws in those four documents. Just like the President is sworn to uphold. Not to make an unpatriot act. Like Bush did.

And apparently you don't know the first thing about civics. W. wasn't the only party involved with the Patriot Act, which is what people keep missing -- along with the Executive Orders over the years that were put into that Legislative act.

That's my problem. Until people recognize the reality of it all, it will never be repealed. We'll see what Obama does, but the Patriot Act was not the will of W.

 

[Dawn]

I somewhat raised the Patriot Act point in this discussion with a very different perspective... but i think the discussion it raised is more interresting than what i was aiming to. :o

 

[marquis2]

The Constitution has remained a bedrock in determining how America treats its citizens.However,it was written over two centuries ago when the world was a different place.Obviously there are events involving issues which were never envisaged and the Constitution needs to be amended from time to time to be able to serve its purpose.Otherwise you will be stuck in a time warp as has happened with Islam.

 

[hedgehogbigun]

Guns should be banned. From the UK and looking across at the US, it's mad. Why should you need a gun? Majority of the UK think that US gun laws are just retarded.

Good thing there's absolutely no gun crime in the U.K. and, good thing you didn't beg for small arms to arm the Home Guard during WWII; otherwise, you'd have been fucked. Vielleicht ich solle Deutsch sprechen? if you don't understand now, you would have had we not been an armed nation.

 

[hedgehogbigun]

The Constitution has remained a bedrock in determining how America treats its citizens.However,it was written over two centuries ago when the world was a different place.Obviously there are events involving issues which were never envisaged and the Constitution needs to be amended from time to time to be able to serve its purpose.Otherwise you will be stuck in a time warp as has happened with Islam.

Rights should be added, but not taken away. I personally think the press is dangerous, as they can incite violence (ie LA riots after the Rodney King police officers's verdicts). Had there been no press to report the verdict, there would have been no riots. Should be get rid of the first amendment? Of course not. With freedom comes some danger.

 

[Member2019]

Ummm ...

The Constitution has remained a bedrock in determining how America treats its citizens.However,it was written over two centuries ago when the world was a different place.Obviously there are events involving issues which were never envisaged and the Constitution needs to be amended from time to time to be able to serve its purpose.Otherwise you will be stuck in a time warp as has happened with Islam.

I haven't read an argument on firearms that wasn't already addressed by many writings of several founding fathers. They did consider the implications of the 2nd Amendment, capitalism, etc... Before you assume otherwise, you should read up.

I see absolutely no value to the statement "it was written over two centuries ago." It shows that people make assumptions and actually haven't read the notes of many of those who drafted the US Constitution -- much less why a supermajority of states would NOT pass the US Constitution until it was in the Bill of Rights. The states, not federal legislators, wrote the Bill of Rights.

They refused to pass the US Constitution because it was "too powerful" of a federal government, not just against the state, but their people (remember, people were citizens of their state, former colony, not the US)! The first Ten Amendments were designed to off-set federal powers over the individual. God that oversight gets old! That and the, "oh, it was for the state militia." Only the 10th Amendment is a state right, Amendments 1-9 are individual (which was recently upheld in the Supreme Court for the 2nd Amendment, even several liberals in and outside the legal system agreeing it's an individual right, including Obama's comments).

The state of Florida, even when 6 out of 7 of the State Supreme Court judges were appointed by Lawton Chiles (Liberal Democrat), were very much for gun ownership. Florida, the 4th largest state by population (far, far more than Illinois now, closer to New York), has some of the largest cities and highest crime rates in the US.

Florida has some of the most "progressive" gun control and ownership laws in the US. They "just work." If you merely pull a gun (don't even fire it), you can go to jail for 10-25 years (some of the toughest laws of any state). But if it fired in self-defense, you are protected (some of the best "no non-sense" laws of any state). And it follows the base, federal, non-sense laws established over fifty years ago on the type of firearms.

If you want some of the most ineffective laws in the nation, I invite you to visit California's. They outlaw different things, and they have instant replacements. They are heavily based on people's ignorance of firearms. Every time I read some of them, I laugh. There are many firearms built around California's laws that are even more deadly than the ones they were designed to prevent (which is always ineffective).

The US has always been extremely progressive since Day 1, concerned with substance, not fluff (even if politics tend to show otherwise). Perfect example? "Mr. President." George Washington made us look like the laughing stock with that one, so much so that John Adams begged him to consider a more "formal" (for the time) title. Ironically, from a civics standpoint, it basically started the view, which continues to today, that the Vice-President, as president of the Senate, is utterly useless member -- unless there is a tie.

 

[marquis2]

The trouble (and strength) of a legal documents is that what matters is what's said and not what its authors meant to say.The 2nd Amendment taken with the other connected Acts clearly didn't intend to concern itself with the individual right to gun ownership.But it was worded in such a way that makes gun control seem unconstitutional.

 

[LBP 76]

The trouble (and strength) of a legal documents is that what matters is what's said and not what its authors meant to say.The 2nd Amendment taken with the other connected Acts clearly didn't intend to concern itself with the individual right to gun ownership.But it was worded in such a way that makes gun control seem unconstitutional.

Agreed. Clearly it was to do with the militia. Because in those days, the militia was the military; as there was virtually no peacetime army. So it was imperative for the security of the nation that individuals owned firearms.
That is obviously not the case anymore.
Unless of course they start allowing military personnel to take their fully armed, F-16's home with them on weekends.

 

[D-rock]

The trouble (and strength) of a legal documents is that what matters is what's said and not what its authors meant to say.The 2nd Amendment taken with the other connected Acts clearly didn't intend to concern itself with the individual right to gun ownership.But it was worded in such a way that makes gun control seem unconstitutional.

What other connected acts? The idea that the second amendment was anything other than an individual right never occurred seriously before the mid point of the 20th century. Early Americans would have laughed at people who thought that. Plus, it would be kind of funny to have nearly all the other amendments be concerned with individual rights but for some reason have the second which is worded much the same way, and with everybody including the government and the founders believing that to be such, to be thought of differently. The people that think otherwise aren't even engaged in revisionist history anymore. It's more like flat out lying. Not to mention that most of the states had the right to bear arms in their own constitutions. That's would be pretty funny if it wasn't considered an individual right. Plus, who says that what the writers intentions are don't matter. That might be the dumbest thing I have heard about constitutional thinking. What the original intent of the law was to the people that wrote it should be the MOST important thing, especially when it comes to something like that. It's not like a contract written last year where the people alive that created it can quickly change it if they have to. Besides if for some reason 50 years from now our language changes and the literal written word in a part of the constitution doesn't mean the same thing anymore are you actually telling me that any constitutional/human right that could be affected about it would just suddenly not exist anymore even if it was something humans were considered to have as unalienable right to since the begging of time by the creators of the law. My God if you believe that I sure as hell hope the literal dictionary definition of slavery, freedom, speech, religion, or hardly anything else doesn't alter ever.

 

[Facetious]

[ . . the Constitution needs to be amended from time to time to be able to serve its purpose.Otherwise you will be stuck in a time warp as has happened with Islam.

and who is "winning" ? :dunno:


Marquis - If only I had lived my life inside a metropolis , I might have your mindset. America is a relatively sparsely populated land, that said, when we are confronted by the criminal element, we don't all have the capacity to yell out to our 100 - 10,000 other, next door neighbors for assistance, as would be more likely the case in compact - condensed GB and Europe.
Just call the cops, (the bobbies) you might rebut (?) Again, there might be a half hour or greater, required response time, until the lawmen arrive at your reported location.

Go to Google Maps and randomly drop down, to any location on the lower 48 states . . . chances are that you'll land out in the boondocks. Do the same above Euro and / or UK and you're much more than likely to land in a population center. The criminal element thrives everywhere in America. It is in my nature to use any and all means necessary to defeat any aggressors that I might come in contact with.

For me, firearms are used as a recreation, out in the woods etc. It's nice that they double as an insurance policy, if needed ! We're all too often portrayed and / or stereotyped as bloody aggressive savages, nothing could be further from the truth.

Aside - I'm seeing a lot of compare and contrast "In UK we don't do this . . . . . America should follow." I disagree with this notion completely.

:2 cents:

 

[marquis2]

and who is "winning" ? :dunno:


Marquis - If only I had lived my life inside a metropolis , I might have your mindset. America is a relatively sparsely populated land, that said, when we are confronted by the criminal element, we don't all have the capacity to yell out to our 100 - 10,000 other, next door neighbors for assistance, as would be more likely the case in compact - condensed GB and Europe.
Just call the cops, (the bobbies) you might rebut (?) Again, there might be a half hour or greater, required response time, until the lawmen arrive at your reported location.

Go to Google Maps and randomly drop down, to any location on the lower 48 states . . . chances are that you'll land out in the boondocks. Do the same above Euro and / or UK and you're much more than likely to land in a population center. The criminal element thrives everywhere in America. It is in my nature to use any and all means necessary to defeat any aggressors that I might come in contact with.

Aside - I'm seeing a lot of compare and contrast "In UK we don't do this . . . . . America should follow." I disagree with this notion completely.

:2 cents:

Canada, Australia are both sparsely populated too.I don't really get the point-a certain proportion of people are criminals.In a densely populated area you are going to encounter more of them.Call the cops? If you're lucky you'll get a text message telling you they're too busy to come out.
Being armed will certainly in some instances give you protection.In some instances it will simply raise the stakes.But statistically it's much more likely to cause the injury or death of a family member.The principle of protection by being armed falls when it encounters facts.

 

[LBP 76]

Canada, Australia are both sparsely populated too.I don't really get the point-a certain proportion of people are criminals.In a densely populated area you are going to encounter more of them.Call the cops? If you're lucky you'll get a text message telling you they're too busy to come out.
Being armed will certainly in some instances give you protection.In some instances it will simply raise the stakes.But statistically it's much more likely to cause the injury or death of a family member.The principle of protection by being armed falls when it encounters facts.

I agree...again.