23 Apr 13
A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Just a couple of dozen words, crafted by educated men of their time, and both efficient and clear in its meaning. Any controversy about its meaning is created by people who don't like it's clear message, like B.H. Obama. We were all assured that Obama had no anti gun agenda, but one of his colleagues at Chicago U. John Lott writes in the introduction to his book "On the Brink" that Obama believes that nobody should own guns. What part of "shall not be infringed" doesn't he understand?
Recently, the Senate shot down a bill purportedly designed to redesign background checks on firearms purchases which was 8800 pages of legalese.
What seems most often ignored, is "keep and bear". Owning a weapon is one thing, and bearing it another. I own twelve long guns, and 8 handguns, but even the most gunophobic person must know I can't bear that kind of load. In the event of a "militia moment" I would very quickly have to decide on one gun that best suited the needs of the moment, and leave the rest.
Civil war cavalrymen often carried as many as six handguns, and these were not light weight modern revolvers. Reloading on a bouncing horse was not practical, so usually a lance or sabre was there when ammo ran out. Carrying that hardware horseback required a sturdy young man with a strong back, and a horse. Militia had to carry not only their weapon, but their supplies.
Is there any conflict with the original meaning, and the notion of civilians having the right to own and bear individual military arms? Doesn't practicality limit which arms would be chosen? People can't carry a lot of the exotic stuff that is often brought up in debates, and such items would not be practical either. For example, I know someone who has a Barrett 50 sniper rifle. I asked him how far he could carry it. Answer from car to the station at the shooting range, and a separate trip to carry the ammo.
23 Apr 13
Originally posted by normbenignIt's amazing to me how paranoid and brainwashed American gun owners are. Every time someone wants to check the background of those who wish to purchase a gun in order to make sure they are not being sold to a crimminal or mentally ill person bent on destruction, gun owners everywhere twist this scenario to mean "those damn liberals are gonna take away all our guns" What a bunch of loonies!🙄
A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Just a couple of dozen words, crafted by educated men of their time, and both efficient and clear in its meaning. Any controversy about its meaning is created by people who don't like it's clear message, like B.H. Obama. We ...[text shortened]... m car to the station at the shooting range, and a separate trip to carry the ammo.
23 Apr 13
Originally posted by bill718Bill, it is not my intent to label anyone a loonie, but you must know that there is a NICSs system, National Instant Check System, and even gun sales at shows have to use it. How do you answer Professor Lott's assertion that his colleague B. H. Obama absolutely believes that no American should privately own a gun?
It's amazing to me how paranoid and brainwashed American gun owners are. Every time someone wants to check the background of those who wish to purchase a gun in order to make sure they are not being sold to a crimminal or mentally ill person bent on destruction, gun owners everywhere twist this scenario to mean "those damn liberals are gonna take away all our guns" What a bunch of loonies!🙄
What was in those 8800 pages? Certainly more than defining new background checks. Why did they not arrest and prosecute the 15000+ who failed the background check? It is illegal to attempt to buy a gun, if you are a convict or mentally ill person. Why check more people when you don't go after the people who break the existing law?
23 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignIt does not matter what is in those 8800 pages, and Obama is a President, not a dictator. Anyone with half a brain knows gun ownership will go on in America no matter what a sitting President wants to do, not to mention the fact that background check laws are simply ignored many times during private gun sales and at gun shows....so calm down, them damn liberals won't be taking your guns away.
Bill, it is not my intent to label anyone a loonie, but you must know that there is a NICSs system, National Instant Check System, and even gun sales at shows have to use it. How do you answer Professor Lott's assertion that his colleague B. H. Obama absolutely believes that no American should privately own a gun?
What was in those 8800 pages? Certai ...[text shortened]... person. Why check more people when you don't go after the people who break the existing law?
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199155
24 Apr 13
Originally posted by normbenignWith every right, no matter how fundamental - freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc. - it can be overriden if the state has a "compelling interest" to do so.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Just a couple of dozen words, crafted by educated men of their time, and both efficient and clear in its meaning. Any controversy about its meaning is created by people who don't like it's clear message, like B.H. Obama. We ...[text shortened]... m car to the station at the shooting range, and a separate trip to carry the ammo.
24 Apr 13
Originally posted by bill718I am glad that you seek to reassure me that I have nothing to fear from liberals. I am totally calm. It does matter what was in those 8800 pages, because although not a dictator, the President and a compliant Congress can obliterate the 2nd amendment with a barrage of paper and words. More words, and more paper are not better.
It does not matter what is in those 8800 pages, and Obama is a President, not a dictator. Anyone with half a brain knows gun ownership will go on in America no matter what a sitting President wants to do, not to mention the fact that background check laws are simply ignored many times during private gun sales and at gun shows....so calm down, them damn liberals won't be taking your guns away.
Do you think you'ld like to address any of the questions or issues of the OP?
24 Apr 13
Originally posted by KunsooThat is a polite way of saying the Constitution is just a scrap of paper which government may ignore if it sees fit. And fundamentally that is true, but a Constitution is the only thing between us and tyranny.
With every right, no matter how fundamental - freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc. - it can be overriden if the state has a "compelling interest" to do so.
The State exists by our permission. If we allow it to sweep aside the Constitution for the sake of temporary partisan goals, I'm not liking our future as a free and democratic nation.
Some of the founders questioned whether a parchment barrier was enough to deter State growth.
24 Apr 13
Originally posted by normbenignThe NRA is doing its job exceptionally well, and that is to put money into the pockets of the corporations within the gun industry. They keep the ignorant masses paranoid and afraid, thus driving up demand which boosts sales and prices of weapons and ammunition.
I am glad that you seek to reassure me that I have nothing to fear from liberals. I am totally calm. It does matter what was in those 8800 pages, because although not a dictator, the President and a compliant Congress can obliterate the 2nd amendment with a barrage of paper and words. More words, and more paper are not better.
Do you think you'ld like to address any of the questions or issues of the OP?
Can I assume, Norm, that you do not believe a 12 year old convicted murderer with schizophrenia should be able to buy an M2 .50 Cal machine gun? If my assumption is correct that means you are for some level of gun control.
Most people fall somewhere in the middle, where they do not believe all guns should be banned completely, nor do they believe that there should be no form of control or regulation at all. So the real question is where the line is drawn and which gun laws are sensible and which are not.
But unfortunately with the right wing nuts if you draw the line in a different place than them then it must be because you want to take away ALL guns. It's kind a like if you don't believe in Laissez Faire Capitalism then you absolutely must be the other extreme and be a "Socialist."
24 Apr 13
Originally posted by normbenign12 long guns and 8 handguns.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Just a couple of dozen words, crafted by educated men of their time, and both efficient and clear in its meaning. Any controversy about its meaning is created by people who don't like it's clear message, like B.H. Obama. We ...[text shortened]... m car to the station at the shooting range, and a separate trip to carry the ammo.
Why do you own so many?
Is war going to break out in your area soon?
Or is it just a bad neighbourhood?
What are the 8 handguns that you own?
Any of these included?
Glock 17
Glock 21
Glock 23
Beretta 92
Colt m 1911 a1.
The last one being my favourite.
Despite the fact that the magazine carries less than the rest.
24 Apr 13
Hard to believe there are so many pawns out there going along with the nonsense of gun control as a means to stop violent crime. The kings Queens Bishops and crooks have a different reason altogether for gun control and the weak minded pawns regurgitate the nonsense they are given by the liberal schools and news media.
24 Apr 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperthe NRA is just Ok IMHO, in its defense of the 2nd. There are other grass roots groups that do better.
The NRA is doing its job exceptionally well, and that is to put money into the pockets of the corporations within the gun industry. They keep the ignorant masses paranoid and afraid, thus driving up demand which boosts sales and prices of weapons and ammunition.
Can I assume, Norm, that you do not believe a 12 year old convicted murderer with sc ...[text shortened]... Laissez Faire Capitalism then you absolutely must be the other extreme and be a "Socialist."
The gun industry isn't a big one. Surprised? The biggest booster of gun sales has been B.H. Obama.
"Can I assume, Norm, that you do not believe a 12 year old convicted murderer with schizophrenia should be able to buy an M2 .50 Cal machine gun? If my assumption is correct that means you are for some level of gun control."
That I would presume to be an all but extinct demographic. For the sake of argument, though let's say that the 2nd amendment protects from infringement the right of adult Americans to keep and bear military weapons. Let's eliminate the children, plus the majority of adults who couldn't lift the gun to carry never mind tote it into battle. Aren't the majority of them mounted on helicopters or vehicles? This is not a weapon that I would even consider "bearing" or "keeping" due to weight and expense. I wonder how many of those 15,000 turn downs were trying to buy an M2?
This is a straw man argument. I have a whole lot of guns that I would like to sell because they are just too heavy for me to tote around if a "militia moment" happened.
AS to gun control per se, if it doesn't amount to "infringing" I can go along. But even in the case of felons, their rights are taken away in sentencing, but in all but a few cases not forever. Is there any reason and embezzler, counterfeiter or car thief should be denied his 2nd amendment right forever? And the mentally ill, is too easily abused.
"Most people fall somewhere in the middle, where they do not believe all guns should be banned completely"
According to Professor Lott, the President is one of those who does.
It is unfortunate that anyone who believes the Constitution should be read as written is a "right wing nut". Obviously, those who do want to ban all guns, can't be honest about their desires, and couch their aims in stealth, calling for "common sense" gun laws, but common sense would argue that the proposals would solve a particular problem.
For example, if I wish to sell some of my guns, why not make form 4473 available to private sellers, and the NICS system, so that I could order a background check of my buyer? No way, they want me to become a "dealer" just to sell my own property. The result is that many owners who no longer want a particular gun sell it privately without knowing the purchaser.
I'm not going to comment on the analogy re: laissez faire and socialism. This subject deserves its own thread without pollution.
24 Apr 13
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyActually, my hand guns are:
12 long guns and 8 handguns.
Why do you own so many?
Is war going to break out in your area soon?
Or is it just a bad neighbourhood?
What are the 8 handguns that you own?
Any of these included?
Glock 17
Glock 21
Glock 23
Beretta 92
Colt m 1911 a1.
The last one being my favourite.
Despite the fact that the magazine carries less than the rest.
Charter Arms .38 special Cheap, small and easy to conceal. Haven't carried or shot it in decades.
Norinco 9mm, single action, 14-1 capacity Cheap, very reliable, but ugly Same as above.
Davis .380 small concealable 5-1 single action. cheap, reliable, but underpowered.
Taurus 357 magnum revolver 6 capacity, a stopper, still fairly compact
Taurus 92 9mm (clone of Berreta 92 15-1 capacity Good high quality, dependable weapon.
Paraordnance .45 1911 clone w. double stack magazine 14-1 capacity, my favorite
Paraordnance .45 Officer model 12-1 capacity shorter barrel. 2nd favorite.
Ruger Super Redhawk .44 Magnum revolver, Hunt deer with it. High quality gun.
Taurus Raging Bull .44 Magnum revolver, replaced by the Ruger.
I accumulated them over a thirty year period, and would like to sell off all but the PO full size and the Super Redhawk, At one time or another I carried each of them for protection in my business.
That is except the .44s.
This illustrates a point, on gun proliferation. The current system here makes it quite difficult for a person to privately sell a gun he no longer wants. In the same period of time, I've owned a lot more than that number of cars and trucks, but those can be sold privately without problems.
24 Apr 13
Originally posted by normbenign"That I would presume to be an all but extinct demographic. For the sake of argument, though let's say that the 2nd amendment protects from infringement the right of adult Americans to keep and bear military weapons. Let's eliminate the children, plus the majority of adults who couldn't lift the gun to carry never mind tote it into battle. Aren't the majority of them mounted on helicopters or vehicles? This is not a weapon that I would even consider "bearing" or "keeping" due to weight and expense. I wonder how many of those 15,000 turn downs were trying to buy an M2?"
the NRA is just Ok IMHO, in its defense of the 2nd. There are other grass roots groups that do better.
The gun industry isn't a big one. Surprised? The biggest booster of gun sales has been B.H. Obama.
"Can I assume, Norm, that you do not believe a 12 year old convicted murderer with schizophrenia should be able to buy an M2 .50 Cal machine gun? ...[text shortened]... nd socialism. This subject deserves its own thread without pollution.
You totally and completely dodged the question. Is your answer yes or no?
"This is a straw man argument. I have a whole lot of guns that I would like to sell because they are just too heavy for me to tote around if a "militia moment" happened."
Clearly you don't know the definition of a strawman argument.
"AS to gun control per se, if it doesn't amount to "infringing" I can go along."
And there it is. What constitutes "infringing" to you might be a sensible gun law to someone else. But the fact remains there is a 100% chance you will accuse anyone who proposes gun legislation you oppose of wanting to take away all guns.
"According to Professor Lott, the President is one of those who does."
And I care what he thinks, why?
"It is unfortunate that anyone who believes the Constitution should be read as written is a "right wing nut"
Right, because obviously anyone who disagrees with you MUST believe the Constitution should not be read as written.