Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Intent of 2nd Amendment (Right to bear arms) Questioned

Intent of 2nd Amendment (Right to bear arms) Questioned (Page 2)
Thread Tools
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Who's "in charge" in Iraq?
The government sure isn't..

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
My thing is,

The right to bear arms is relevant durings times in which the government is unable to protect our citizens.
And it's also relevant during times in which the population needs to protect itself from the government.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
The government sure isn't..

V
Bingo!
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sky Captain View Post
It's been rumored that as soon as the Democrats got back in power, guns would be the first right they take away.
Disarm the people before you declare martial law and a dictatorship.
Haha, that's the "rumor" is it: Democrats will take away the guns and then institute a dictatorship. Why don't you use the correct term, "right-wing lie."
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 05:37 PM
 
When the democrats/socialists/marxists lose an election, you would think there is going to be a revolution.
When the democrats/socialists/marxists win, it's democracy in action.
I wouldn't put it past the democrats to institute a dictatorship. Just to preserver their brand of "democracy".
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2006, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Haha, that's the "rumor" is it: Democrats will take away the guns and then institute a dictatorship. Why don't you use the correct term, "right-wing lie."
When you sell your social agenda through lies and misrepresentations, is that "the truth?"

Let's talk about the "assault weapon ban." First off, there were NO "assault weapons" involved in the ban because technically an assault weapon is selective fire (aka a machine gun in ATF parlance) and the law specifically targeted semi-automatic firearms. Second, the substance of the law had nothing to do with actual crimes being committed and everything to do with "evil looking" firearms. Finally, the government's statistics for the Clinton portion of the 10 years the ban was in effect show that it had NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY REDUCTION IN CRIME. The crime reductions were, for the most part, due to conservative state governments throwing more people in prison for longer times when they were convicted of violent crimes.

Let's talk about Sarah Brady and the fact that so much of what she and her organization says is false that I don't believe her name is actually Sarah.

Now let's look at the numerous organizations that have sprung up every time a state is about to enact a "concealed carry license" law. These organizations would have everyone believe that concealed carry is tantamount to "old West" shoot outs and blood will flow in the streets. Oops, they're wrong. The fact is that every state that has enacted a "will issue" form of concealed carry license (where local cops can't preempt the state law), CRIME HAS DROPPED DRASTICALLY.

Now what about the idiots who said that the changes in Florida's law aimed at eliminating the requirement that a home owner surrender his home if someone invades it and instead specifying that the use of deadly force is appropriate when the homeowner is cornered in his home; they said people would be shooting everyone in sight. Wrong again!

The Federal courts have stated that there is NO requirement for the police to protect individual citizens in the United States. Where does that put Joe Taxpayer? Hopefully Joe is learning that he needs to live in a guarded warren, or he's going to have to take care of himself and his family. Which side are you on? Are you prey, or are you at least as much a predator as the bad guys? Survival depends on your answer.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 12:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
When you sell your social agenda through lies and misrepresentations, is that "the truth?"
You people are truly nuts. One conservative poster claims the "rumor" is that Democrats will ban guns and then institute a dictatorship (this coming from a Bush supporter). When I laugh at that and call it a lie, which it obviously is, you go off on an emotional rant. Nuts, just nuts.

Let's talk about the "assault weapon ban." First off, there were NO "assault weapons" involved in the ban because technically an assault weapon is selective fire (aka a machine gun in ATF parlance) and the law specifically targeted semi-automatic firearms. Second, the substance of the law had nothing to do with actual crimes being committed and everything to do with "evil looking" firearms. Finally, the government's statistics for the Clinton portion of the 10 years the ban was in effect show that it had NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY REDUCTION IN CRIME. The crime reductions were, for the most part, due to conservative state governments throwing more people in prison for longer times when they were convicted of violent crimes.
ghporter, the reduction in crime during the 1990s, the one that coincided with the assault weapons ban, is the most important phenomenon in modern criminology. It was the largest drop in crime in US history. No one knows exactly why it happened, and I sincerely doubt that the assault weapon ban accounted for even a tiny fraction of it, but to make a statistical argument against it is to set yourself up for a real problem.

Let's talk about Sarah Brady and the fact that so much of what she and her organization says is false that I don't believe her name is actually Sarah.
...which shows what, exactly, except how emotional and far gone you are on this issue? How can you be so self un-aware as to make a statement like that above?
Now let's look at the numerous organizations that have sprung up every time a state is about to enact a "concealed carry license" law. These organizations would have everyone believe that concealed carry is tantamount to "old West" shoot outs and blood will flow in the streets. Oops, they're wrong. The fact is that every state that has enacted a "will issue" form of concealed carry license (where local cops can't preempt the state law), CRIME HAS DROPPED DRASTICALLY.
Nonsense. Crime has dropped drastically in every state. No serious criminologist believes there is any evidence that concealed carry has decreased crime. John Lott has been rejected by every neutral and fair researcher in the field. His research does not hold up to scrutiny or to attempts to replicate his findings. He has repeatedly been show to be a simple liar, even admitting writing glowing reviews of himself and his work using internet aliases.
Now what about the idiots who said that the changes in Florida's law aimed at eliminating the requirement that a home owner surrender his home if someone invades it and instead specifying that the use of deadly force is appropriate when the homeowner is cornered in his home; they said people would be shooting everyone in sight. Wrong again!

The Federal courts have stated that there is NO requirement for the police to protect individual citizens in the United States. Where does that put Joe Taxpayer? Hopefully Joe is learning that he needs to live in a guarded warren, or he's going to have to take care of himself and his family. Which side are you on? Are you prey, or are you at least as much a predator as the bad guys? Survival depends on your answer.
Survival depends on your answer? Are you the marden of crime?

Except for unusual circumstances, it is irrational to keep a gun in the home for crime fighting, but if people want to, I suppose Darwinism will work its magic. I live in Montana, where most of us have and use guns, and I strongly support that. But one need not be emotional and irrational about it, as so many seem to be. And one absolutely need not believe in untruths just because they fit one's beliefs.
( Last edited by BRussell; Dec 11, 2006 at 12:18 AM. )
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 12:30 AM
 
A quick question: Is it always legal to shoot and kill a person in 'self defence' in the USA?

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Dr Reducto
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 02:20 AM
 
I can tell you one thing: The government can pry my guns from my cold dead hands.

The minute the government bans guns, they have lost legitimacy in my eyes, and I will kill any cop/ATF agent/soldier who attempts to disarm me (or die trying).
     
TheWOAT  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 03:54 AM
 
PS: Facts about doctors

A. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.

B. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year (all age groups) is ca. 120,000 (Institute of Medicine).

Then think about this:

a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000 (eighty million)!

b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.

c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.00188%.
Statistically, doctors are about 9,000 times more dangerous
than gun owners.

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS A DOCTOR.

Alert your friends to this threat. Should we ban doctors before this gets out of hand?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
You people are truly nuts. One conservative poster claims the "rumor" is that Democrats will ban guns and then institute a dictatorship (this coming from a Bush supporter). When I laugh at that and call it a lie, which it obviously is, you go off on an emotional rant. Nuts, just nuts.
No, it's not a lie, it's a serious concern. Clinton's folks were actively trying to subvert the Second Amendment through his entire presidency.

Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
ghporter, the reduction in crime during the 1990s, the one that coincided with the assault weapons ban, is the most important phenomenon in modern criminology. It was the largest drop in crime in US history. No one knows exactly why it happened, and I sincerely doubt that the assault weapon ban accounted for even a tiny fraction of it, but to make a statistical argument against it is to set yourself up for a real problem.
Reread what I wrote-I said the ban did NOTHING to affect crime, but you seem to think I said the opposite. There were obviously a lot of factors involved, including the economy being fairly good, but the conservative "put 'em in jail" trend is credited with leading the way in many states.
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
...which shows what, exactly, except how emotional and far gone you are on this issue? How can you be so self un-aware as to make a statement like that above?
Sarah and her organization are used as "scientific sources of data" by a large number of Democratic legislators-and that's even though her organization has been very publicly discredited for its lack of veracity many, many times.
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Nonsense. Crime has dropped drastically in every state. No serious criminologist believes there is any evidence that concealed carry has decreased crime. John Lott has been rejected by every neutral and fair researcher in the field. His research does not hold up to scrutiny or to attempts to replicate his findings. He has repeatedly been show to be a simple liar, even admitting writing glowing reviews of himself and his work using internet aliases.
Again there are many factors. However, the relationship between Texas' and Florida's concealed carry laws and their drops in crime is undeniable. I think there are more things going on between the "this doesn't have any affect" camp and the opposite side (John Lott aside) than most people want to think about. Criminals aren't entirely stupid-who wants to risk being shot?
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Survival depends on your answer? Are you the marden of crime?
Low blow and uncalled for.
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Except for unusual circumstances, it is irrational to keep a gun in the home for crime fighting, but if people want to, I suppose Darwinism will work its magic. I live in Montana, where most of us have and use guns, and I strongly support that. But one need not be emotional and irrational about it, as so many seem to be. And one absolutely need not believe in untruths just because they fit one's beliefs.
I agree that most people shouldn't think of having a gun in the house as "protection." I think most people shouldn't have access to guns at all-not without some serious supervision, since most people think they're magic toys that act like guns in movies do. But at the same time, I think that it's important to consider that if there's a CHANCE that a homeowner or a guy on the street has a gun, the criminal will be less likely to risk it than if there's NO chance.

Yes, I'm emotional about this. I spent over two decades serving my country to support ALL OF THE CONSTITUTION, and I really hate when politicians think they can pick and choose what articles and amendments they want to use. The Democrats don't like the Second Amendment, and the Republicans don't like the First and Fourth (along with some pretty substantial articles as well). This IS an all or nothing decision-the WHOLE Constitution is the law of the land and I will still defend it against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Yes, it's that important.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 11:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
A quick question: Is it always legal to shoot and kill a person in 'self defence' in the USA?

V
Ask my brother.

It's legal to use deadly force if you feel your life or someone elses life is in eminent danger.
In Georgia you can kill someone comitting a violent felony. You can kill someone comitting rape.
Even if they've finshed their deed. As it should be.

In some cities you have the right to just be a victim.
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
No, it's not a lie, it's a serious concern. Clinton's folks were actively trying to subvert the Second Amendment through his entire presidency.
Nonsense. There's a criminal background check and there was a ban on assault weapons. Only the most extreme of extremists would believe those "subvert the Second Amendment." It sounds to me like it supports the Second Amendment's goal of being "well-regulated."
Reread what I wrote-I said the ban did NOTHING to affect crime, but you seem to think I said the opposite. There were obviously a lot of factors involved, including the economy being fairly good, but the conservative "put 'em in jail" trend is credited with leading the way in many states.
I understood what you were saying, I'm just pointing out that the empirical evidence is overwhelming and decidedly not in your favor: The largest drop in crime in US history coincided with the assault weapon ban and the brady law. I admit that I personally don't think that correlation = causation here, but I wouldn't want to bring up those statistics if I were arguing your side, since they're so overwhelmingly against you.


Again there are many factors. However, the relationship between Texas' and Florida's concealed carry laws and their drops in crime is undeniable. I think there are more things going on between the "this doesn't have any affect" camp and the opposite side (John Lott aside) than most people want to think about.
I haven't seen any credible evidence to that effect, and I'm reluctant to ask you for any...

Low blow and uncalled for.
Haha, poor marden.
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 03:18 PM
 
Background checks only stop legal firearms purchases.
I'm all for background checks.
I'm also for haveing to be a citizen to purchase/posess a firearm also.
I'm also for stiffer penalties for crimes involving a firearm. Especially posession by a felon.
Mandantory life for posession if a felon.


Regulate the criminal, not the law abiding citizen.
Too bad that guns are seen as more deadly to the American public than drunk drivers.
Yet there are many that are allowed to drive drunk and kill repetitively.
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 03:29 PM
 
I need to ask you folks something. People often claim that they need guns to shoot people in government in case they get out of line. They don't put it quite like that, but that's what it means, no? How do you really justify this kind of idea? We have elections, we have multiple branches of government with checks and balances, we have one of the most stable and liberal republican democracies in the world. The logical conclusion to the belief that shooting people in government is a viable solution is Timothy McVeigh and Russ Weston.

George Bush, with his theory of the "unitary executive," no oversight from Congress, and detention without charge and torturing of American citizens (Jose Padilla), is about as close as we come to a central government run wild. And yet I would never in my wildest imagination consider shooting them, nor have I heard that from even their most extreme political opponents. But it's a staple of his supporters that they need guns to shoot people if they get out of line? It's truly ridiculous.

I can tell you this, if you and the Americans who agree with you were to take up arms against my country in force, rather than just in small numbers like McVeigh et al., I would join "the union army" and protect my country from you and your kind.
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 03:34 PM
 
It's meant for in case of a complete breakdown of the government.
A catastrophy.
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 04:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sky Captain View Post
Ask my brother.

It's legal to use deadly force if you feel your life or someone elses life is in eminent danger.
In Georgia you can kill someone comitting a violent felony. You can kill someone comitting rape.
Even if they've finshed their deed. As it should be.

In some cities you have the right to just be a victim.
Mm because in many European countries you never have the right to self defense. If you are attacked with a deadly weapon and kill the guy with a gun, you get manslaughter.

If you are attacked with a deadly weapon and defend yourself with a knife, baseball bat, club or whatever, you are charged for assault and of course found guilty. The one who attacked you is charged for attempted murder.

Bottom line is, if you defend yourself, you're going to see jailtime. Perhaps not as much as the reall offender, but you will not escape, because assaulting or killing another person is not allowed under *any* circumstances.

Unless you're a cop

That's Europe, hence the need for firearms or deadly weapons is not that great.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 04:07 PM
 
So you're supposed to just stand there and die?
Yeah.
And hope the police find the perp(well your grieving family will)-.(not unlike the US)
And he'll get a slap on the wrist and sent back into society-(also not unlike the US)

At least I have a chance to defend myself in court for my actions as justified.
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sky Captain View Post
So you're supposed to just stand there and die?
Yeah.
And hope the police find the perp(well your grieving family will)-.(not unlike the US)
And he'll get a slap on the wrist and sent back into society-(also not unlike the US)

At least I have a chance to defend myself in court for my actions as justified.
No, no. You can do whatever you want to defend yourself. Just be aware you'll be tried for it as a seperate crime.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
I need to ask you folks something. People often claim that they need guns to shoot people in government in case they get out of line. They don't put it quite like that, but that's what it means, no?
Uhh, I put it exactly like that.

Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
The logical conclusion to the belief that shooting people in government is a viable solution is Timothy McVeigh and Russ Weston.
You have things reversed. It will never get to the point where we have to shoot people because we have guns.

The idea is deterrence.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 04:22 PM
 
You're crazy voodoo. Every legal system has some provision for self-defense.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 04:29 PM
 
I am a law abiding citizen, always playing within the rules. Who the hell are you to tell me I can't own a gun? I fail to see any reason why law abiding citizens should be disallowed a fire arm to protect themselves where the government can't.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Who the hell are you to tell me I can't own a gun?
That would be one of the (multiple) "we know better than you how to manage your life" Democrats. Sorry, but the Reps goosed the pooch by wallowing in their corrupt practices, and now WE get to pay with the possibility of losing MORE civil rights (you know the Dems won't undo George's stupid anti-Constitutional "emergency" actions).

Sometimes I just want to say "where are we going, and what's with the handbasket?"

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I am a law abiding citizen, always playing within the rules. Who the hell are you to tell me I can't own a gun?
And who, exactly, is telling you that?

ghporter, which Democrats are telling him that? The only people I see telling us how to live our lives are the Republicans: telling gays they can't marry and, if not for the Supreme Court, that they can't even have sex; telling us that even if we follow our state law, the DEA can arrest us for medical marijuana; telling pregnant women that the government can require them to have babies, and in many cases telling them they can't have birth control in the first place; telling us that Americans can be detained without charge or trial and tortured. Yet having a criminal background check to enforce the law against felons buying guns means Democrats are telling people how to manage their lives? This is where I say you guys are truly nuts.
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 05:59 PM
 
Woah, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.
Also passed by a Democratic Congress.
Not just the Republicans.

Let the gays marry. It's their right.
Let me keep my firearms. Even if it is an assault rifle. It's my right.
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sky Captain View Post
Woah, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.
Also passed by a Democratic Congress.
Not just the Republicans.

Let the gays marry. It's their right.
Let me keep my firearms. Even if it is an assault rifle. It's my right.
The Defense of Marriage Act allowed states to decide whether to recognize gay marriages from other states. It did not disallow gay marriage. Don't suggest there's no difference between Ds and Rs on that issue.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
You're crazy voodoo. Every legal system has some provision for self-defense.
Provision, yes. It will not exonerate you from the crime you committed though while defending yourself. They'll be more lenient on you.

That's all.

I think you're crazy too, btw. Psychologists usually are. Thanks for sharing though.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 07:00 PM
 
Same with firearms regulation.
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 08:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
And who, exactly, is telling you that?

ghporter, which Democrats are telling him that?
Let's start with Hillary and Nancy. Add Ted Kenedy (who hasn't figured out it was the whack-job behind the trigger that killed his brothers and that a gun was just the tool they used). Use your imagination; the Democratic party is out and out AGAINST the Second Amendment, and has worked very hard to get that ONE amendment seen as a "group right" while all the other are specifically "individual rights."
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
The Defense of Marriage Act allowed states to decide whether to recognize gay marriages from other states. It did not disallow gay marriage. Don't suggest there's no difference between Ds and Rs on that issue.
There's one major problem with that-it's unconstitutional. There's this little thing called the "full faith and credit clause" that says "if you're married in Texas you're married in Tennessee. This was a major thorn in the segregationists' sides during the Civil Rights movement; people left Alabama, got married in Illinois, and then Alabama had to recognize the marriage-even if the couple had skin colors that didn't match. But since it costs a metric buttload of money to challenge a law to the Supreme Court-AND you have to have been harmed by the law, it's going to be a long time before this gets challenged.

The difference between the two parties is that the Republicans expected the states to lockstep into a "NO gay marriage" stance, while the Democrats secretly hoped they would. Neither party is run by people with the good of the nation at heart anymore-they're far to idiological.

This is the same reason I'm afraid of what the new Congress will do-they're ideologues, not truly representatives of the population. I hope to GOD someone with a brain and a spine manages to run on either side in 2008-otherwise that handcart is going to feel very familiar.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 08:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
This is the same reason I'm afraid of what the new Congress will do-they're ideologues, not truly representatives of the population. I hope to GOD someone with a brain and a spine manages to run on either side in 2008-otherwise that handcart is going to feel very familiar.
What kind of agenda do you think they could realistically push?

Whatever their personal utopia is, this is a landmine of an issue, and the gun lobby has, shall we say, teeth.

Edit: scratch that. I guess they could just pick up the Assault Weapons Ban.

Frankly, "assault weapons" aren't the problem. It's high capacity concealable weapons in an urban environment.

You don't need something with a 30 round clip that you can stash under your jacket unless you're a cop or are doing something nefarious. If the thing is rifle sized I'm nowhere near as worried about it being used intentionally in a crime.
( Last edited by subego; Dec 11, 2006 at 08:26 PM. )
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
And who, exactly, is telling you that?

ghporter, which Democrats are telling him that? The only people I see telling us how to live our lives are the Republicans: telling gays they can't marry and, if not for the Supreme Court, that they can't even have sex; telling us that even if we follow our state law, the DEA can arrest us for medical marijuana; telling pregnant women that the government can require them to have babies, and in many cases telling them they can't have birth control in the first place; telling us that Americans can be detained without charge or trial and tortured. Yet having a criminal background check to enforce the law against felons buying guns means Democrats are telling people how to manage their lives? This is where I say you guys are truly nuts.
First, Abortion is completely seperate because its argument is based on the rights of another human (the fetus). Not a good analogy. For the record though, I am largely pro-choice (1st trimester). Thats not on topic though.

Second, i AGREE with a criminal background check!! Read my posts! "I am a law abiding citizen." Not arguing against my arguments.

BRussell...What exactly is your stance on gun control? Should I be allowed a gun in my home to defend myself and my belongings against criminals/home invaders? Others, please chime in, I'd like to know...
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 08:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
BRussell...What exactly is your stance on gun control? Should I be allowed a gun in my home to defend myself and my belongings against criminals/home invaders? Others, please chime in, I'd like to know...
I second the question.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 08:44 PM
 
I worry about people who can get automatic weapons without going through the rather lengthy and expensive legal process you or I would have to go through. I worry about punks who think that "having a gat" means they are "men" when it really means they haven't learned those nice lessons about sharing and controlling your temper that you and I learned in kindergarten.

I do NOT worry about someone who paid over $15,000 for a legal machinegun. Such a person is on so many government lists that it isn't smart for him to sneeze wrong. I don't worry about people with concealed carry licenses because they've had to go through training - including range time in most cases - that makes them a lot safer than Johnny Gangbanger with his "piece." I don't worry about the vast majority of Americans having access to ANY firearm, just so long as they get some training so they're safe. And further, I don't see why our government should be worried about these people either.

I think that there will be efforts to undo some of the more progressive gun control laws that have been passed in the last six years. Frankly, I do not see how the manufacturer of a properly functioning device can be held responsible for what someone does with it, but it took a law to shield the firearms industry from harassment lawsuits to that very point. I should note that, until the "Assault Weapons Ban" expired, its "high capacity magazine" provisions made it uneconomical for American companies to make firearms magazines of larger than 10-round capacity-and that meant that our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq got crap magazines for their MILITARY weapons-the industry that makes guns for Uncle Sam is the same one that makes guns for Joe Plinker.

And you can conceal a whole lot in whatever car you do your drive-by in, so I really don't see small firearms of whatever capacity as a problem either...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
And you can conceal a whole lot in whatever car you do your drive-by in, so I really don't see small firearms of whatever capacity as a problem either...
I'm not sure if this was addressing my point.

I know you can conceal whatever in a car, but this is not a situation where using something rifle sized is ideal.

No one has corrected me in my impression that the real intent behind the amendment is as the "final" balance against the government.

Going on that theory, it seems to me longarms are the key thing that should receive protection. If you are over 18 and not a felon you should not be barred from owning these in any jurisdiction. Frankly, I think it should be without a license [edit: a government list of who has guns seems counter to the point], but I'm willing to move on this.

Pistols have two uses. Portable (oft concealed) self defense and as a concealed weapon. It seems you agree that carrying a concealed weapon is a privilege, not a right.

I think submachine guns are more accurately defined (outside of their use as an assault weapon for vehicle crews) as machine pistols, and hence would fall under the above regulations. [edit: there are a few other specific tactical uses for a submachine gun. I think in almost every civilian situation that would involve these tactical concerns, a shotgun is the more appropriate choice.]

So I can accept individual jurisdictions wanting to put restrictions on pistols and the like, but stay away from the longarms. [edit: fully automatic weapons should be regulated too (as they are)]
( Last edited by subego; Dec 11, 2006 at 09:39 PM. )
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
The Defense of Marriage Act allowed states to decide whether to recognize gay marriages from other states. It did not disallow gay marriage. Don't suggest there's no difference between Ds and Rs on that issue.
Off topic
Barack Obama is against gay marriage.


OK everyone, don't have an orgasm just because I mentioned that name.
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 09:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
You're crazy voodoo. Every legal system has some provision for self-defense.
No, he ain't crazy.

True story 1: Bloke hears knock on door, goes to open it. Is confronted by three large blokes who try to forcibly enter his house. Being an ex-boxer, he takes 'em out. Cops haul him into the station for assault. While he's at the station, friends of the three blokes go back, ransack his house and rape his wife.


That's modern Britain - no right to self defence whatsoever.


True story 2: Woman wakes up in the middle of the night to find a bloke (stranger) violently banging on her front door. She calls the cops. Cops arrive, let the bloke off with a caution and then proceed to spend the next two hours questioning the woman as to why she has knives in her kitchen. !!


That's also modern Britain - no common sense from the authorities whatsoever.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 09:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Provision, yes. It will not exonerate you from the crime you committed though while defending yourself. They'll be more lenient on you.

That's all.
I just don't believe that. I believe that in Europe it is legal to defend yourself with appropriate force if attacked. It's a foundational concept in all of our legal systems.


I think you're crazy too, btw. Psychologists usually are. Thanks for sharing though.

V
Ha, "you're crazy" isn't exactly a diagnosis. Here's a diagnosis though: You seem awfully sensitive. Did a psychologist molest you when you were a child or something?
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
First, Abortion is completely seperate because its argument is based on the rights of another human (the fetus). Not a good analogy. For the record though, I am largely pro-choice (1st trimester). Thats not on topic though.
No matter how you think about it, it's still about government power vs. individual power. People who are "pro-life" believe that the government should decide the issue, not the individual. Those who think government should control our lives rather than individuals always think there's a good reason for their view.

Second, i AGREE with a criminal background check!! Read my posts! "I am a law abiding citizen." Not arguing against my arguments.
Right, you're a law-abiding citizen, which is why I asked you who is trying to take away your guns.

BRussell...What exactly is your stance on gun control? Should I be allowed a gun in my home to defend myself and my belongings against criminals/home invaders? Others, please chime in, I'd like to know...
Of course you should be able to have a gun. I don't think anyone in the country (assuming you're American) thinks you shouldn't. Not Ted Kennedy. Certainly not Hillary Clinton. Not even Sarah Brady. No one in the US with even the smallest amount of power or organization advocates banning all guns. In fact, I don't know anyone at all who advocates such a thing. Limits on the types of weapons people can have? Sure, I think everyone agrees with that. Background checks? Sure, I think everyone agrees with that. Banning law-abiding citizens like you from having any guns? No one believes in that.

I will say this though: Having a gun in your home for protection is not rational under most circumstances. Unless you live in a very high-crime area (in which case you should move) and no one else lives with you (single, no kids) and you are well-trained and have no history of depression or alcohol/substance abuse, it's probably riskier than it is protective. And as we've discussed previously in this thread, crime is at close to an historic low in the US.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 10:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
I just don't believe that. I believe that in Europe it is legal to defend yourself with appropriate force if attacked. It's a foundational concept in all of our legal systems.
No it is not. Believe what you want.

Ha, "you're crazy" isn't exactly a diagnosis. Here's a diagnosis though: You seem awfully sensitive. Did a psychologist molest you when you were a child or something?
Why, do you molest children?

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2006, 11:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Of course you should be able to have a gun. I don't think anyone in the country (assuming you're American) thinks you shouldn't. Not Ted Kennedy. Certainly not Hillary Clinton. Not even Sarah Brady. No one in the US with even the smallest amount of power or organization advocates banning all guns. In fact, I don't know anyone at all who advocates such a thing. Limits on the types of weapons people can have? Sure, I think everyone agrees with that. Background checks? Sure, I think everyone agrees with that. Banning law-abiding citizens like you from having any guns? No one believes in that.
Yet that's just what several items submitted in both the House and Senate during Bill's presidency would do-though slowly and quietly. Get enough momentum behind Hillary running for that office and you'll see a lot of sycophants lining up to be the first to sell their souls - AND OUR CONSTITUTION - to the devil for her. Watch and see. If she's smart, she'll let some other jerk be the Dem's sacrificial scapegoat in '08 and work on something like a platform that doesn't equate to "we're not George and his bunch." But watch them carefully, because they "know better than us what we need and how to take care of us." My dad doesn't take care of me anymore, and I damnsure don't want anyone with some idiological stick up his/her idiological butt doing it either.

I think I need to go take a nap now. We may be arguing in the same direction from different sides of the cynicism issue.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2006, 12:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
No matter how you think about it, it's still about government power vs. individual power. People who are "pro-life" believe that the government should decide the issue, not the individual. Those who think government should control our lives rather than individuals always think there's a good reason for their view.
You are beginning to sound like a conservative, at least my own brand of conservatism.

Right, you're a law-abiding citizen, which is why I asked you who is trying to take away your guns.
If hillary and ted had their way they'd be telling me what to eat, when i should excersize, and how much/when to pay up for taxes. I live in a highly liberal state and the crooks within it sicken me with the bullshit the general populous buys.

Of course you should be able to have a gun. I don't think anyone in the country (assuming you're American) thinks you shouldn't. Not Ted Kennedy. Certainly not Hillary Clinton. Not even Sarah Brady. No one in the US with even the smallest amount of power or organization advocates banning all guns. In fact, I don't know anyone at all who advocates such a thing. Limits on the types of weapons people can have? Sure, I think everyone agrees with that. Background checks? Sure, I think everyone agrees with that. Banning law-abiding citizens like you from having any guns? No one believes in that.
I agree with you there minus the last sentence.

I will say this though: Having a gun in your home for protection is not rational under most circumstances. Unless you live in a very high-crime area (in which case you should move) and no one else lives with you (single, no kids) and you are well-trained and have no history of depression or alcohol/substance abuse, it's probably riskier than it is protective. And as we've discussed previously in this thread, crime is at close to an historic low in the US.
I guess another point of mine would be, it ain't the government's role to decide what is rational for me. I don't want them to try to protect me from myself. That equates to liberties being taken away. I want to live my life how I want to, however irrational it is its my life to do so as long as I don't infringe on anyone else's rights Anything less than that is unnacceptable to me.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:54 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,