What's your position on gun rights?
- 04-24-2008, 05:17 PM
- 04-24-2008, 05:18 PM
04-24-2008, 05:24 PM
04-24-2008, 05:25 PM
“Besides, it is a disgrace to grow old through sheer carelessness before seeing what manner of man you may become by developing your bodily strength and beauty to their highest limit.”
04-24-2008, 06:26 PM
04-24-2008, 07:04 PM
No state allows carrying in a courthouse, most do not allow carrying in government buildings, and some states have restrictions about carrying in buildings with large capacities (like stadiums). Furthermore, some states allow businesses to put up signs restricting carry on that business's premises.
04-24-2008, 07:09 PM
Would you tell someone that they can't protest in front of the courthouse because it should be sufficient to protest in the park?
From the DC v. Heller oral argument:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What is -- what is reasonable about a total ban on possession?
MR. DELLINGER: What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only an the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's been considered especially -- especially dangerous.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right if you allow the possession of newspapers?
04-24-2008, 09:36 PM
The gun itself can do no harm, so if carried by a responsible rational individual it is harmless. It is only when it is carried by an irresponsible or irrational person that it does harm, and an irrational person can do as much damage with a car, or with many other objects. In 2001 (sorry, just picking years I can find) there were 29,573 deaths attributed to firearms. 16,869 of them were suicides. You don't need a gun to commit suicide, so lets remove those for a net of 12704 deaths
Blood poisoning killed more than twice as many people that year http://www.ritecode.com/aerobicgardening/topkill.html
The center for disease control estimates more than 20,000 people died in 2001 from the flu.
I count hunt for most statistics, but to me these are more than enough.
04-24-2008, 09:39 PM
04-25-2008, 03:18 PM
In the language and time of the drafting of the Constitution, the militia was the military equivalent of a volunteer fire department: in both cases, every able-bodied man was *expected* to turn out and take part, any time either fire or other disaster hit a community, and in the case of incursions by foreign soldiers, indians, bandits or whatever, those same able-bodied men were expected to muster - that is, grab their gun & canteen and join the rest of the men in the community: If you weren't able-bodied, had no firearm, or were too young, you didn't "pass muster", and did not take part.
A well-regulated militia was one large enough and well-enough equipped as to be useful in a battle/defense scenario, and including a sufficient number of officers to command them effectively (or at least keep them out of trouble). Pretty simple, really. Because the militia was drawn at need directly from the civilian ranks, they all needed to have arms capable of taking the field against a serious military opponent. At the time, those old single-shot black powder rifles were the state of the military art, not antique relics which would prove to have inadequate range, damaged parts, insufficient caliber, or be too hard to aim and fire accurately in a combat situation.
Therefore, rendering the sense of the second amendment in modern language, we get something like this:
"The Body of the People being the last, best defense of the nation, the right of the people to own and carry arms equal to that sacred duty shall be neither restricted nor denied."
Others may quibble w/ my recension, and I invite them to propose their own re-statement, as it's crucially important that we citizens understand the import behind the Second; we also need to understand that while it is unquestionably an individual right (and I would say, duty) to keep and bear arms, it is equally a civic obligation to the community, and to posterity - it is no less than our right and duty and obligation to feed our children, love our families, and deal squarely with the other guy: THAT is the people we are and have always been, and claiming it's "all just semantics" is at its best, pure fiction.
Last edited by BodyWizard; 04-25-2008 at 03:34 PM. Reason: "and another thing" - and spelling. Oh, and another thing...
04-26-2008, 10:54 AM
"What's your position on gun rights?"
I think guns should have rights too. Gun are people too... just like soylent green.
04-26-2008, 12:15 PM
Holy crap that gun is freakin amazing...........i'd be lying if i said i wouldn't want to have a go of that thing. Looks a little impracticle though with that round thing in the middle.
04-26-2008, 03:13 PM
Just two weeks ago, we had to write an entire paper on whether or not we favor guns on campus -- 38 out of 40 people would support a bill legalizing firearms to be carried on campus! Just an interesting perspective from younger citizens.
04-26-2008, 03:21 PM
I am for gun control essentially the way it is currently. Felons should not be able to own guns, along with mentally ill persons, and persons under the set age of 21 for handguns and 18 for long guns.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.
I am for the right to own an automatic weapon, provided it is done in a way much like getting a class 3 weapon currently (long background check, approval from sheriff in your county, etc).
I am for CCW on campuses provided they have gone through the process to legally carry on campus.
Keep this in mind, the only thing laws stop are LAW ABIDING citizens, NOT the criminals.
Most law enforcement officers also have the same opinion on this matter as described by me above.
04-26-2008, 03:25 PM
Also, to the persons saying it should not be allowed to own certain "heavy" arms, why not? You can drive a car with 1000+hp or to keep things simple you can choose a v8 over a 4 cylinder. You don't HAVE to have the v8, but some may like it. Different toys for different boys. Doesn't make it illegal, maybe excessive, but not illegal.
04-26-2008, 07:58 PM
Yes, but (god forbid) i'd rather have someone "out of control" with a semi-automatic weapon than a full auto...
-Saving random peoples' nuts, one pair at at time... PCT info:
-Are you really ready for a cycle? Read this link and be honest:
*I am not a medical expert, my opinions are not professional, and I strongly suggest doing research of your own.*
Similar Forum Threads
- By R1balla in forum Sports TalkReplies: 11Last Post: 05-11-2011, 05:19 PM
- By Young Gotti in forum Training ForumReplies: 9Last Post: 04-29-2009, 12:15 PM
- By East1600Plus in forum Training ForumReplies: 13Last Post: 01-06-2007, 09:41 PM
- By Stinger124 in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 41Last Post: 09-09-2006, 11:05 PM