VeggieBoards banner

1 - 20 of 207 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
<i>"The amendment protects the people's right to maintain an effective state militia, and does not establish an individual right to own or possess firearms for personal or other use."</i><br><br><br><br><a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/021205/dcth039_1.html" target="_blank">http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/021205/dcth039_1.html</a><br><br><br><br><i>SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court, upholding California's assault-weapons ban, decided that the Second Amendment does not guarantee individuals the right to bear arms.</i><br><br><br><br><a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021206/ap_on_re_us/assault_weapons_2" target="_blank">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ault_weapons_2</a><br><br><br><br><i>A federal appeals court upheld California's assault weapons control act Thursday, ruling that there is no constitutional right for individuals to keep and bear arms.</i><br><br><br><br><a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/trib/20021206/lo_latimes/court_upholds_state_assault_weapons_ban" target="_blank">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...lt_weapons_ban</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
What does everyone think about guns and the second amendment?<br><br><br><br>
Does it give an individual the right to own guns?<br><br><br><br>
Should guns be legal or illegal?<br><br><br><br>
What's your opinion?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,763 Posts
In my opinion there should be very stiff legal penalties for using a gun to threaten someone's safety, or even making a verbal threat to use a gun to harm someone, whether or not the perpetrator has an actual gun. The actual possession of a gun should not be legislated. Only the <b>harmful use</b> of a gun, or threatened harmful use, should be legislated. Of course causing harm in self-defense, should be excepted.<br><br><br><br>
I don't believe in in controlling violence by controlling the mechanical instruments of violence; I believe in controlling violence by controlling mind. To me, an ideal world would be one with guns all over the place - and without it even occuring to anyone to use any of them to harm someone. This is the situation now with drain-cleaner. It is near every sink; tho it may be kept out of the reach of children, no-one does anything to keep drain-cleaner out of the reach of adults. It rarely occurs to anyone to put drain-cleaner in someones whiskey, or soup. But you can kill someone that way; or at the very least, sentence them to a life of eating thru a stomach tube.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Apple, the 9th Circuit has a long history of reversals on appeal, and their most recent decision that you cited is in direct conflict to the holding in a 2001 5th Circuit opinion that formally recognized the 2nd as an individual right, and not a collective one. The individual "status" is also the formal opinion of Ashcroft's Justice Department. This split among the Circuits could give rise to an opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court. Wanna lay odds on which way they will rule? <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/grin.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":D"><br><br><br><br>
As far as firearms ownership goes, aside from convicted felons, minors or mental incompetents, I feel that firearms ownership should be absolutely unrestricted in the US. I also feel that the 2nd Amendment plainly states such, and that any state laws to the contrary or federal restrictions such as magazine capacity, etc. are a Constitutionally prohibited "infringement".<br><br><br><br>
Illegal conduct with a firearm is what should be controlled, not the instrumentality itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Bankruptor</i><br><br><b>Apple, the 9th Circuit has a long history of reversals on appeal, and their most recent decision that you cited is in direct conflict to the holding in a 2001 5th Circuit opinion that formally recognized the 2nd as an individual right, and not a collective one. The individual "status" is also the formal opinion of Ashcroft's Justice Department. This split among the Circuits could give rise to an opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court. Wanna lay odds on which way they will rule? <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/grin.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":D"></b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Of course it has a long history of reversals. It is one of the most, if not, liberal court in the United States. Every court should be like the 9th District- doncha think? Supreme Court would no doubt reverse it due to the fact it's mostly conservative.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,612 Posts
I have no problem with guns being legal. Bullets, on the other hand <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/naughty.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":naughty:"><br><br><br><br>
No, seriously, one of the few things more pathetic than the NRA and the Gun Lobby is my academic track record in government and law classes. Alas, what's even more pathetic, is both that violent crime laws are too right-liberal (perhaps the only time I'll ever say that), and that people actually take the "right" to bear arms seriously. It clearly has no relevance in modern times.<br><br><br><br>
But then, a lot of people take Charlton Heston seriously, too, but the left ain't all that sharp to begin with (and by "begin" I mean the PRESIDENT!)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,763 Posts
"I have no problem with guns being legal. Bullets, on the other hand "<br><br><br><br>
Actually, if you must prohibit the construction and dissemination of some kind of human-made device, it does make more sense to prohibit cartridges, than to prohibit guns. Guns are little more than tubes, used to control the direction of bullets. Cartridges, on the other hand, contain the source of chemical energy that propels the bullet, and the bullet itself, and are what primarily determines the velocity of the bullet, and the penetrating ability of the bullet. Without "guns," cartridges can still be used -- you can empty out the nitro-cellulose and make bombs out of it. Or simply put the cartridge in the right sized plumbing pipe, and whack the end with a carpenters hammer. Ban guns? next thing you know, plumbing pipes and carpenters' hammers will need to be banned. Along with other kinds of tubing, and hammers. But ban cartridges -- making replacements to use in your high-tech gun, or pipe, is not as easy as making replacements for guns.<br><br><br><br>
Trying to prevent violence by banning guns but allowng cartridges, is sort of like trying to prevent cannibus-smoking by banning rolling papers but allowing cannibus leaves; like trying to prevent alcohol-drinking, by banning glasses but allowing alcohol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
modern times? lol, i think you put to much confidence in the idea that it being the year 2002 would stop anything bad from happening in which someone might need to defend themselves by means other than their voice. I wonder if shortly before the Nazis were rounding up Jews, everyone was thinking about how wonderful and safe it was to be in "modern times". Don't let the date fool you, people are savages, no matter what year you live in.<br><br><br><br>
The common theme of the constitution and original bill of rights is that the individual should be able to defend themselves, either by force, by vote, by due process or the written/spoken word.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,612 Posts
But the framers of the Constitution knew what they were writing was only going to work for near generations, so the original Constitution had to have a "built-in" ability to be updated with the times, and it does indeed have that in the ammendments such as the one in question here. However, private-sector interest groups and lobbyists have corrupted the system to the point where no real social reform is a realistic hope.<br><br><br><br>
The Consititution, by methods of bicameral legislative bodies and checks and balances, designs the American government to be such that no dictator could ever take control of the state forces in the manner Hitler did, so you Nazi analogy is irrelevant.<br><br><br><br>
Also, people really weren't thinking about how wonderful the state was before the Third Reich era. Most of continental Europe was so totally economically ravaged by WWI that it was surely not "wonderful and safe."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
I like the idea of being able to defend myself against my government if some dictator took over or something, but if they got ahold of the military (and got all of the generals, etc.) to go along with it, I think we the people would have to get real creative in how to rebel, bc the US military is pretty serious. We would have to have a huge amount of foreign help to even make a dent if we wanted to use traditional violent means to overthrow the goverment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
The writers of the constitution had no idea what they were writing would last 5 years. I would even venture to guess most were suprised the constitution was still in effect at the time of their death, but that is besides the point.<br><br><br><br>
Under stressful circumstances the government could, and has, effectively bypass the constitutional rights of individuals and seek out certain sects of people and without due process detain them for further investigation or in the name of safety of the country. Also may limit individuals freedoms of privacy and give gov't and police depts more authority over surveilance all in the name of safety. Do these individuals not have the right to defend themselves from the gov't actions which is violating their constitutional rights?<br><br><br><br>
i dont know, if the war just ended and a new promising gov't was set up, i would think that wonderful and safe and that genocide wasn't an option in that "modern time".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
It's interesting to note how many folks vigorously defend the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution as unquestionably only applying to the "individual", then try to claim some other interpretation of the 2nd. I have vigorously maintained that the 2nd is an individual right since 1968 and the GCA that was a knee jerk reaction to Bobby Kennedy and MLK, and rest assured that I take great pleasure in seeing the DOJ AND one of the highest federal courts in the US support that view. I only hope that the US Supreme Court will hear this matter and definitively settle the long misinterpreted Miller case and its progeny, which case was specifically limited in its facts and has been broadly overcited and overemphasized in modern jurisprudence largely due to a lack of other opinion from "on high".<br><br><br><br>
Max, I can't help but respond to your "It clearly has no relevance in modern times" observation. Perhaps in academia land this is true, but for those of us who have to live in a world where their women are afraid to go to the ATM machine without them, rest assured that a .45 under my jacket is far superior to a cell phone call to a cop that is 15 min. away. I'm thankful that I've never had to call on anything other than my Tony Soprano-like countenance in such matters thus far, but rest assured that there are some of us out there who are willing and prepared to go beyond a philosophical discussion in life or death encounters. I'm sorry if that appears gauche to you.<br><br><br><br>
I find myself in agreement with Majake once again.<br><br><br><br>
Apple, here's a followup article from the SFGate on this case . . . .<br><br><br><br><br><br><a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...08/MN220661.DTL" target="_blank">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...08/MN220661.DTL</a><br><br><br><br><br><br>
__________________
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,612 Posts
The framers certainly had future generations in mind when writing the Constitution and purposely writing the Bill of Rights outside of the body proper. Article V of the Constitution is explicitly written to address the need as it was assumed that the Consittution will need to be ammended.<br><br><br><br>
I'm not arguing that we don't have the right to defend ourselves from the government. I am arguing that the right to bear arms is irrelevent means to such ends given the proliferation of lobbying powers (for better and for worse) and political action and the like. We don't need guns to affect change. It is a handy excuse, though.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,612 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Bankruptor</i><br><br><b>Perhaps in academia land this is true, but for those of us who have to live in a world where their women are afraid to go to the ATM machine without them, rest assured that a .45 under my jacket is far superior to a cell phone call to a cop that is 15 min. away.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
And I'm afraid of that woman carrying a concealed weapon in public. I certainly wouldn't move back to Baltimore without my .22, but I'd keep it in a safety lock beside my bed where I need it.<br><br><br><br>
I'm not against gun ownership. I'm against the leftist rhetoric that says that we can own any weapon that can be manufactured. I'm also not a big fan of the far right views towards banning all forms of defensive weapon owning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Max, I never mentioned anything about a woman carrying a weapon, though no doubt many lawfully do; I was referring to myself. If you're afraid of me when I'm carrying, all I can say is that the State isn't, that's why they issued me the license many moons ago, and to no regret from either side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Max Power</i><br><br><b>...I'm not against gun ownership. I'm against the leftist rhetoric that says that we can own any weapon that can be manufactured. I'm also not a big fan of the far right views towards banning all forms of defensive weapon owning.</b></div>
</div>
<br>
Are left and right used differently in the context of gun politics?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
How would a dictator get and keep control without military backing? I think it would be safe to say that it mostly unrealistic that a dictator could get control and keep it without military control. In which case the military would be on the opposite side. If not, hand guns and riffles wouldn't even make a small dent against the military.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Thalia</i><br><br><b>I like the idea of being able to defend myself against my government if some dictator took over or something, but if they got ahold of the military (and got all of the generals, etc.) to go along with it, I think we the people would have to get real creative in how to rebel, bc the US military is pretty serious. We would have to have a huge amount of foreign help to even make a dent if we wanted to use traditional violent means to overthrow the goverment.</b></div>
</div>
<br>
 
1 - 20 of 207 Posts
Top