Outlawing guns in the US ...

[Facetious]

Re: No!

I am extremely pessimistic of the upcoming President, his cabinet, and their inability to focus on what needs to be done, versus their uncontrollable desire to put forth all of their agendas and rules BEFORE they fix the things that need it. I have no faith in his promises to put things right, and every belief he will put it all on the back burner until he has made the country what he wants it to be, before making it what it needs to be.

Great Writ !

I have recently heard the optimist side of the argument - "Sew & Sew will be too busy with the things that need to be done, he won't possibly have time to . . ."


A risky disposition, IMO.

If that makes any sense to you.

Affirm ! Roger that !

 

[ChefChiTown]

There are too many pages to go back and re-read every single post that has already been made, so I apologize if someone has already touched on this...

The Constitution was made official in 1787.
The Bill of Rights was made official in 1791.

The 2nd Amendment, which reads as follows...

Amendment II

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.

...was made official when the Bill of Rights was instituted in 1791. This Amendment, loosely translated, allows US citizens the right to carry a firearm.

This Amendment is currently 217 years old. When the 2nd Amendment was instituted, the United States had just went through the Revolutionary War. When our Forefathers decided to give US citizens the right to bear arms, the type of guns they were referring to were guns (muskets) from the Revolutionary War era, that had to be hand packed with gun powder and could only fire one single shot at a time before it had to be reloaded, which could take up to 30+ seconds to do so. They were NOT referring to...

Machine guns
Uzis
Semi-automatics
Glocks
Shotguns
etc.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, our Forefathers had no idea what the future would hold for the advancement in firearm technology. They had no idea that, one day, a citizen would be able to walk around with a gun that could fire hundreds of bullets per minute, and carry the ability to kill hundreds of people without even reloading.

This is exactly why we can't look at the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and think that whatever it says should still be applied to life today.

 

[assholebythedoor]

talking about treason in its finest light

 

[LBP 76]

^^ Excellent point Chef.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

There are too many pages to go back and re-read every single post that has already been made, so I apologize if someone has already touched on this...

The Constitution was made official in 1787.
The Bill of Rights was made official in 1791.

The 2nd Amendment, which reads as follows...



...was made official when the Bill of Rights was instituted in 1791. This Amendment, loosely translated, allows US citizens the right to carry a firearm.

This Amendment is currently 217 years old. When the 2nd Amendment was instituted, the United States had just went through the Revolutionary War. When our Forefathers decided to give US citizens the right to bear arms, the type of guns they were referring to were guns (muskets) from the Revolutionary War era, that had to be hand packed with gun powder and could only fire one single shot at a time before it had to be reloaded, which could take up to 30+ seconds to do so. They were NOT referring to...

Machine guns
Uzis
Semi-automatics
Glocks
Shotguns
etc.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, our Forefathers had no idea what the future would hold for the advancement in firearm technology. They had no idea that, one day, a citizen would be able to walk around with a gun that could fire hundreds of bullets per minute, and carry the ability to kill hundreds of people without even reloading.

This is exactly why we can't look at the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and think that whatever it says should still be applied to life today.

But it is fair to say, they knew advancements would be made. They were made in the life times of our founding fathers, not only in firearms, but other everyday technologies. You also forget, or choose to ignore that, when our founding fathers wrote that document, the farmer, and the soldier carried the same, or EQUAL firearms. Sometimes, the farmers had better guns then the soldiers, if they so choose to purchase or trade for them. I think it's fair to say, we as citizens are not only out gunned, but have been denied the right to put ourselves on equal ground. Even if you have a class 3 license, which would entitle you to possess and own fully automatic weapons, you can only possess them in accordance with the Governments rules, and knowledge...also putting the citizen at an unfair advantage. You also forget, or choose to ignore that, as far as a sport goes, shooting is a shitload of fun. It also hurts no one, and provides a tremendous relief of stress. The argument that a law abiding person can snap, and commit a crime with a gun is invalid. He can pick up a knife, or a bat just as easily...he can also get behind the wheel of a car. My car can also be stolen, and the thief may be on drugs or alcohol, be impaired, and kill someone, just like my guns can be stolen, and used for illegal purposes. The fact is, all a gun owner wants, is to own his guns, he doesn't expect an anti gun person to go out and get one, yet the anti gun people don't seem to care about anyone else's rights, just their own point of view. They seem to think that because they want something, it should be the law.

 

[Dawn]

As Chief pointed, the 2nd Amendment is 217 years old so it should allows only firearms with the same age

 

[ChefChiTown]

But it is fair to say, they knew advancements would be made. They were made in the life times of our founding fathers, not only in firearms, but other everyday technologies.

Obviously they knew that advancements would be made, but they didn't have any idea what kind of advancements would be and could be made.

Do you think that someone who was alive in 1791 could've imagined or even comprehended something like a television, for example? Do you think that person could've imagined sitting in his living room watching a square box that had moving and talking pictures on it? Hell no.

So, yes...they knew that advancements would be made in all facets of life (especially technology), but they had no idea how far those advancements would go.

:2 cents:

You also forget, or choose to ignore that, when our founding fathers wrote that document, the farmer, and the soldier carried the same, or EQUAL firearms.

If I wanted to, I could go buy the same exact M4A1 Carbine, 5.56mm assault rifle that is currently issued to soldiers in the United States Army.

 

[Facetious]

Couldn't we morph The Second Amendment into something that was brought up earlier today . .
"A Foundation" as opposed to an absolute, and leave it at that ?

 

[Friday on my mind]

If I wanted to, I could go buy the same exact M4A1 Carbine, 5.56mm assault rifle that is currently issued to soldiers in the United States Army.

But you can't buy an M-16 or any other fully automatic weapon or hand grenades or even more importantly an f-16 or a cruise missile or a nuclear bomb ,even if you could afford them which you can't.You were right earlier chef civilians and the regular armies arms were much more similar at the founding and progress ( unfortuanately) has made the idea of the populace being able to actually overthow the govt if the military sided with the govt impossible with the vast difference in fire power.

 

[Member2019]

Yes the constitution sanctioned the right to property. And slaves were property. Therefore though the constitution was silent on slavery it's guarantee of property became inextricably linked with the slavery issue.

As it is on the 2nd Amendment when it comes to everything from murder or at least manslaughter to definitions and types of weapons like assult and even explosive devices that did exist in the 18th century!

Again, several Congressional members recognized technology and the future, including weapons that would eventually fire with repetition. Benjamin Franklin was well, well, well ahead of his time in many, many, many of his writings and views on these things and more. Hell, I am a degreed Electrical Engineer (EE), a professional that came about over a century (and virtually a century and a half) after Franklin.

People who assume otherwise are not well read. Hell, even McRocket / LBP 76 even call me "well read" from both account names.

This is self defence , of course if you have very good reason to believe he's going to murder you then use whatever it takes to prevent this.But the vast majority of intruders are simply after valuables and money.

Exactly! Which is why people regularly get charged with criminal assault with a deadly in their own homes! Why? Because afterwards the intruder is found to be unarmed.

Different states in the US define "self-defense" different, and not just for firearms.

For starters, I am not "all-knowing." I find the Prof to be unreadable and unpindownable because he tries to overwhelm any discussion or debate with deviation, sidetrack, anecdotes and unsubstantiated claims.

Start focusing on the specifics and please stop with the "generalities." You keep "falling back" to this sort of meta-discussion any time I take your logic and, often, lack of details/responses to counter my corresponding logic, in the hope of discrediting anything and everything I say. Not out of any merit, or not, of what I say, but just in general.

I really, really limit my posts to areas where I'm either A) an expert (missile defense, especially the first-hand politics of it as much as the technical specifics, aerospace, some general engineering concepts, microeconomics) or B) I have read quite a bit but am not an expert (macroeconomics, I'm not an expert, civics, I'm not an expert, etc...). I'm pretty damn fucking open with where I have experience and where I do not, and I'm very forward where I'm ignorant, especially when someone shows that I am. How many people do you know who do that?

Especially on the engineers aspects. I point out technical facts that even some people have to agree says I'm at least "well read" because everything it comes to a point, and other people start reading, they find out I'm right. When I'm wrong, I admit I'm wrong. But sometimes people start re-writing what I said, or defining terms differently that I mean them (even after I explicitly define them for myself), and then it falls into this generality bullshit that gets old.

Either make your point or stop. It's almost as pathetic as people who were trying to discredit me for my 3-thread lie back a year ago, something I fully and forwardly admitted to making up (and told several people off-board when I was doing it too). I'm pretty fucking honest and forward, including knowing where I am too ignorant to speak on something.

This tactic creates an "all-knowing" sage-like persona for him. It's like debating with the Wizard or Oz, only once we turn back the curtain....:flame: My frustration gets the better of me sometimes.

Do I debate in every thread? Hell no! But do I debate in threads of A & B as I defined above? Yes.

In my professional career, every now and then, some people get a really 'tude with myself. They say I cannot claim to know as much as I do. But then people quickly point out all the threads and discussions that I never comment on. Then the obvious of the truth results.

I only comment when I'm either A) an expert or B) passionate and have read up (although I'm not an expert, and I'm the first one to admit it).

I'm really fucking sorry I challenge people to read up on their civics, and not assume things. Ironically, I often don't even agree with the results of the civics. I'm personally tired of people calling me a right-winger on this board like people on more conservative boards call me a left-winger. If you want to label me, stick with American Libertarian-Capitalist, and demonize me based on that.

Don't demonize me as an arrogant, all-knowing fool because I am not. There are countless threads and discussions I steer clear of because A) I'm not an expert and B) I'm not even remotely "well read" on them.

There are too many pages to go back and re-read every single post that has already been made, so I apologize if someone has already touched on this...

The Constitution was made official in 1787.
The Bill of Rights was made official in 1791.

Not be anal, but the term would be "ratified."

This Amendment, loosely translated, allows US citizens the right to carry a firearm.

No, that is incorrect. If you read the most recent debate in the US Supreme Court, Justices made people aware that the grammar of the sentence was not remotely telling that often quoted story. There were several revisions of the 2nd Amendment and, to make matters worse, American English grammar has changed.

A lot of people like to assume it's "loosely translated" as an individual right. But any visit to the creation of the 2nd Amendment clearly stated that the submissions and corresponding writing of the 2nd Amendment was about individual rights as much as state, with several drafts where the grammar was adjusted. Even early versions had order and punctuation that was clearly about the individual.

This debate was repeatedly brought up during the recent US Supreme Court ruling on the DC Gun Ban. And now, as Supreme Law, the US Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment, like Amendments 1-9, are individual rights, not merely state rights. That assertion and review is now Supreme Law, unless overturned by Amendment process. Hell, even some of the Dissenting Justices agreed to that, along with Obama, even if they believed the DC Gun Ban on firearms in the home was compatible with the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

But you can't buy an M-16 or any other fully automatic weapon or hand grenades or even more importantly an f-16 or a cruise missile or a nuclear bomb ,even if you could afford them which you can't.You were right earlier chef civilians and the regular armies arms were much more similar at the founding and progress ( unfortuanately) has made the idea of the populace being able to actually overthow the govt if the military sided with the govt impossible with the vast difference in fire power.

But here's the deal. People keep throwing up many assault rifles which are illegal to sell/own in the US to outlaw guns. WTF?!?!?!

How does outlawing all guns prevent someone from obtaining an assault rifle any more that is already outlawed? That is bleeding-heart, illogical bullshit, and I cannot believe intelligent people actually try to make that argument.

One of my biggest fears is that someone will "do something stupid" next month (January), and they will do it with an illegal firearm. That's when all the illogical people will come out in favor of outlawing guns, totally ignoring that the firearm used was not legal to own anyway.

People repeatedly like to state statistics that do not apply to legal gun owners and citizens, like assault rifles used in the drug trade (let alone non-US citizens in many cases), various explosives that are not allowed to be privately owned/stored, etc... It utterly drives me bonkers that someone would even remotely equate legal gun ownership of an allowed firearm with illegal weapons and illegal ownership.

Outlawing legal ownership of allowed firearms does absolutely nothing to stop either illegal ownership or firearms that are illegal to own/sell from existing. Look at the statistics on assault rifles and it's not even funny. Thousands of the latter versus only tens of the former -- and that's from Brady's own statistics!

 

[Facetious]

But you can't buy an M-16 or any other fully automatic weapon

I think that you can in certain states, certainly NOT in Calif. or New Joyz !

There's a place near Las Vegas, (IIRC) that offers the willing and enthusiastic to fire fully auto military rifles. There's certainly no marksmanship to that kind of shooting, besides, it's all over in a split second. You just kinda take aim at a pumkin, pull the trigger and you're done. . .nope, not much excitement in "vicinity" shooting when only one round is req'd to smash the punk-in. :1orglaugh

 

[Member2019]

Automatic/repeating firearms were expected, as well as advanced shells and explosives

As Chief pointed, the 2nd Amendment is 217 years old so it should allows only firearms with the same age

As funny as that is, remember that explosives did exist when they were written, and many -- what would be termed today -- "SciFi" automatic reloading and repeating weapon designs were proposed and known of. They just weren't practical yet.

We engineers know what's "coming next." Maybe not the how's and why's, but we see them decades and sometimes even centuries beforehand.

The Russians and NASA went into space knowing what the environment would be like. They knew how to protect men, machine, etc... They know many things, well before they were ever developed or experienced. They knew what would be developed -- decades and even centuries beforehand.

I know this is difficult to grasp if you don't have a degree in physics or engineering, or at least a "well read" understanding. But many, many inventions of the next 100+ years have attributes that are already known. They do come up in legislative discussions, as they are invariably destined to come about.

I've seen it first hand in my past work. Things that are not even on the drawing board for decades into the future, having real, technical and political consequences now.

 

[Member2019]

I think that you can in certain states, certainly NOT in Calif. or New Joyz !

There's a place near Las Vegas, (IIRC) that offers the willing and enthusiastic to fire fully auto military rifles. There's certainly no marksmanship to that kind of shooting, besides, it's all over in a split second. You just kinda take aim at a pumkin, pull the trigger and you're done. . .nope, not much excitement in "vicinity" shooting when only one round is req'd to smash the punk-in. :1orglaugh

And this has what to do with ownership or the 2nd Amendment?

Furthermore, do not confuse a place to shoot as one that sells firearms that are illegal to own, and is otherwise regulated to allow the discharge of to select individuals.

Again, why are we debating the 2nd Amendment on firearms that are outlawed by many and, in many cases, all states? The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee you have any right to a weapon that can kill man people fast'n quick.

That's why explosives were regulated 200+ years ago as well. The argument that the founding fathers were ignorant of the technological advances that were to come is laughable, especially with Franklin.

Just because people stick their heads in the sand and don't want to read up on the history of the Tommy Gun, the '30s and countless other incidents and laws that are very much in effect doesn't mean that over 50 years later, Intratec and many home built/modified weapons, were anything "new."

As people regularly point out, legal ownership has had absolutely little to do with the great actrocities and mass killings. It's why virtually all of the arguments to repeat the 2nd Amendment, based on Assault weapons, are laughable -- because the 2nd Amendment doesn't override such bans on such types of weapons. If anything, the courts have repeatedly upheld the bans and related laws as compatible with the 2nd Amendment.

Assault weapons have nothing to do with any argument on the 2nd Amendment, neither in age or in law. It is legal to ban the buying/selling of various assault weapons, and require certain limitations in design. Hell, the biggest problem is that legislators (let alone the public) are often too technically ignorant to write the laws, and they would be better written by experts on firearms, ironically enough.

 

[Dawn]

Re: Automatic/repeating firearms were expected, as well as advanced shells and explos

I know this is difficult to grasp if you don't have a degree in physics or engineering, or at least a "well read" understanding. But many, many inventions of the next 100+ years have attributes that are already known.

Famous french authors like Jules Vernes and even Flaubert were not only well read but also avid readers of sciences and technologies. Jules Vernes always claimed that he was writing what the engineers allowed him to think, nothing more (of course, regarding technologies, not the fantasy!).

Even if i'm ignorant about avant-garde technologies, i know for sure that many people have an eye in the future.

In pop culture, thanks to the trend around Leonard Da Vinci, it is generally admitted (not understood but admitted) that people can think of technologies far ahead of their times because they understood the logics which are allowing them.


Sidenote: you turned my funny comment into something really interresting :thumbsup:

 

[Basedow]

Just bought my first handgun last week and will be picking it up Saturday morning

 

[Member2019]

Disclaimer ...

Your point is valid, Prof. At least, thats what i think
Sidenote: you turned my funny comment into something really interresting :thumbsup:

People have complained in the past about my phrases like "if you don't have a degree in physics or engineering" as arrogant. It's not. When you are such, and see a supermajority of the populace unable to grasp elementary, 18th century concepts in physics, it tends to drive that view.

Especially with regards to space exploration, defense, etc... (which is what I have spent half of my career in). People are easily fooled into believing something that is not true, physically. From the Moon Landings were faked ("there's no air") to the 9/11 Towers ("kerosene cannot melt steel"), lack of elementary Statics and Dynamics (Engineering Analysis: Statics, Engineering Analysis: Dynamics) -- Sophmore year college-level courses (in the modified engineering college curriculum, obviously) -- tends to cause you to have to just grunt and bear it.

Today kids still grow up into adults with a complete lack of understanding of basic principles of physics, and Greek-era Aristotle type assumptions are believed by over 1/2 to 3/4ths of even western citizens by default (Japan and a few European countries are notable exceptions though). On this board, before the poll was removed (something I indirectly caused shortly after I joined ) and with a great, great number of votes, over half of the board believed the US Moon Landings were faked. That really puts the average expertise of this board with regards to physics at a great disadvantage versus even the general American public (where it is more towards 10%, as at least most people believe the experts they personally know and trust who do have such backgrounds).

 

[ChefChiTown]

No, that is incorrect. If you read the most recent debate in the US Supreme Court, Justices made people aware that the grammar of the sentence was not remotely telling that often quoted story. There were several revisions of the 2nd Amendment and, to make matters worse, American English grammar has changed.

A lot of people like to assume it's "loosely translated" as an individual right. But any visit to the creation of the 2nd Amendment clearly stated that the submissions and corresponding writing of the 2nd Amendment was about individual rights as much as state, with several drafts where the grammar was adjusted. Even early versions had order and punctuation that was clearly about the individual.

This debate was repeatedly brought up during the recent US Supreme Court ruling on the DC Gun Ban. And now, as Supreme Law, the US Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment, like Amendments 1-9, are individual rights, not merely state rights. That assertion and review is now Supreme Law, unless overturned by Amendment process. Hell, even some of the Dissenting Justices agreed to that, along with Obama, even if they believed the DC Gun Ban on firearms in the home was compatible with the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

It seems as if you think I'm trying to debate an "individual's" right to carry a firearm...which I am not.

The 2nd Amendment is loosely translated. Just look at it's exact text...

Amendment II

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 I am saying is that the 2nd Amendment is loosely translated in such a way that our government gives it's citizens the right to purchase and carry a firearm, when that's not even close to what it says.

Originally, the 2nd Amendment was created as a way to ensure the people (as a whole) that their government couldn't take their guns away from them; the guns that they already had in their possession (not guns that they could potentially own in the future). That is why it says "the right to KEEP..." and not "the right to purchase..."

:2 cents:

 

[Member2019]

The 2nd Amendment is loosely translated. Just look at it's exact text...

The "exact text" is ...
A) Just one of many revisions, let alone the original submissions by the states, and
B) Was written over 200 years ago of changes in American English

This repeatedly came up in the DC Gun Ban, that people trying to prove you had to "loosely translate it" to get "individuals rights" were grossly misinformed. The records of the committees that took the submissions and worked on the wording had several revisions that did flat out read as "individual," not just militia.

It's "wishful thinking" to suggest otherwise. Sorry, but true. You've been fed a lot of the media non-sense. Although even some left-leaning, but quality, media outlets with integrity did admit that the revisions did exist, and the states did submit it as an individual right as well.

It's pretty much not debated among historians who actually view the archives and writings of the time. There was absolutely no intent whatsoever during the drafting of the Bill of Rights that it was only about militias.

If you only look at that single phrase of 1791 alone, in 2008 grammar, that's the only way people can wish. If you read the many submissions, the several revisions, and the actual commentary on its drafting, there is no doubt it's about individual as much as state (militia).

 

[ChefChiTown]

The "exact text" is ...
A) Just one of many revisions, let alone the original submissions by the states, and
B) Was written over 200 years ago of changes in American English

I agree with part A; seperate states did submit their own versions of the 2nd Amendment to our Forefathers before the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Most of the text in all of those versions though, are very, very similar to the final version used in the actual document.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html#hist
^^^^^
I've always found that site to be pretty cool and informative.

:2 cents:

In reference to part B; that just supports my argument that the document, specifically the 2nd Amendment, is loosely translated, which you argued before that it was not.

:dunno:

 

[bodie54]

Originally, the 2nd Amendment was created as a way to ensure the people (as a whole) that their government couldn't take their guns away from them; the guns that they already had in their possession (not guns that they could potentially own in the future). That is why it says "the right to KEEP..." and not "the right to purchase..."

The word "keep" has a number of meanings. In the case of the 2nd amendment its meaning is to posses, or own, in a broad and general sense, which would of course include via lawful purchase. There was never any intent to restrict gun ownership to only those who already possessed guns.