Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

What's your position on gun rights?

Saurabh said:
That is nothing but fear-mongering without any sound reason at all.
Click to expand...
you can say so, but I notice the lack of "any sound reason" in your contrary assertion. I'm not even remotely convinced.

Saurabh said:
Let me ask you this - If you are so worried about tyrants overrunning USA can you please name me such tyrants in last 100 years of USA history?? Maybe a couple of Presidents that took away all the civil liberties of US citizens, to such an extent that every American was thankful for having the right to gun?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the lovely job of demonstrating my point. :duel:

Saurabh said:
It is easy to make all these -tyrant-claims but lets hear out some concrete names/facts etc etc.
Click to expand...
Okay, but I doubt you'll like it:

Adolf Hitler
Jozef Stalin
Mao Zedong
...and of course, the ever-popular King George III

Saurabh said:
WOW! Those are some of the most violent cities in the world and it is only amusing that you compare a USA city to a Somalian city :rofl:

Reality check time:
Click to expand...
Right you are!

I'm comparing the US (not any specific US city, thank you) to other countries that have similarly high per-capita firearm possession rates, compared to ALL of which, the US is by far the safest. You completely ignore the questions of culture and lifestyle and political structure, too.
 
jrkarp said:
Actually, if you check the statistics, you will find that gun crime has been on the rise in England, despite its draconian gun control laws.
Click to expand...
Big gun problem in the Uk (been here nearly 3 years now)............this is going to sound racist, not that i care, but no doubt the massive influx of africans,caribeans, pakistanies and indians over the last few years is contributing to the ever increasing crime numbers.
 
Australian made said:
Big gun problem in the Uk (been here nearly 3 years now)............this is going to sound racist, not that i care, but no doubt the massive influx of africans,caribeans, pakistanies and indians over the last few years is contributing to the ever increasing crime numbers.
Click to expand...

... which shows that perhaps there are factors at work besides guns in the US. The UK's gun control laws are far more strict than would ever be tolerated here, and yet they are not preventing gun crimes/violence.

Remember that the US has 20 million or so illegal aliens inside its borders.
 
Reaper329 said:
all I am saying is read what I wrote in the first paragraph. I do not doubt how the modern world views it, however, in looking at it myself, the wording is a bit inconclusive
Click to expand...
I notice you haven't addressed my questions to you; if you really think the meaning of the amendment is "inconclusive", that'd be a good start on a closer investigation. check Xodus' exquisite post for some hints:

Invalid Link Removed
 
The cops don't even carry guns here. Now that to me is incredibly stupid. They are no more use in a voilent situation then your average bystander. Well they have a batton and mace but yeah you get the picture.
 
Reaper329 said:
it truly is a battle of semantics IMO
Click to expand...
Multiple baseless and unsupported assertions in the face of the historical record and painstaking study thereof - that's hardly a battle (and that ain't just semantics).

At least try to offer a supporting argument for your position: "here's my claim, prove me wrong" is NOT a compelling form of discourse.
 
BodyWizard said:
Multiple baseless and unsupported assertions in the face of the historical record and painstaking study thereof - that's hardly a battle (and that ain't just semantics).

At least try to offer a supporting argument for your position: "here's my claim, prove me wrong" is NOT a compelling form of discourse.
Click to expand...
evidently you did not read the entire discourse that was taking place. When you do, I will be pleased to respond
 
Reaper329 said:
with regard to your first statement I agree, it is semantics however for me if you read it literally then it seems fairly apparent, but we are at the point where there is a lot of give and take about language
Click to expand...
There was no organized militia when the constitution was written...weird how you think it applies only to them then.
 
dsade said:
There was no organized militia when the constitution was written...weird how you think it applies only to them then.
Click to expand...
quite the contrary, when you look at the formation of the war for indy, there wasa fairly organized militia. In fact, for the most part, Washington credited the use of the militias (outside of Franch assistance) for really allowing the victory to happen
 
Reaper329 said:
quite the contrary, when you look at the formation of the war for indy, there wasa fairly organized militia. In fact, for the most part, Washington credited the use of the militias (outside of Franch assistance) for really allowing the victory to happen
Click to expand...
Read your history books more...it was mostly able-bodied men grabbing their own PERSONAL weapons and standing up...which, again, leads back to the definition of militia:

Invalid Link Removed

"The whole body of physically fit CIVILIANS eligible for military service."

You are simply...incorrect.
 
dsade said:
Read your history books more...it was mostly able-bodied men grabbing their own PERSONAL weapons and standing up...which, again, leads back to the definition of militia:

Invalid Link Removed

"The whole body of physically fit CIVILIANS eligible for military service."

You are simply...incorrect.
Click to expand...
not going to get into my background in history, but I assure you I am in fact correct. I do not argue that civilians made up the militia, so your capped verbeage is unnecessary.

However, lets apply that definition today, and look at dictionary.com for another view:

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

now with that said, it still is semantics. As which one do we choose to aply to modern standards? I do not know if you own guns, however lets assume for this argument that you do. Now the question is do you fit definiton #1, 2, 3, or 4? As #4 is an entriely different view.

So as you see, it is an issue of semantics
 
Reaper329 said:
not going to get into my background in history, but I assure you I am in fact correct. I do not argue that civilians made up the militia, so your capped verbeage is unnecessary.

However, lets apply that definition today, and look at dictionary.com for another view:

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

now with that said, it still is semantics. As which one do we choose to aply to modern standards? I do not know if you own guns, however lets assume for this argument that you do. Now the question is do you fit definiton #1, 2, 3, or 4? As #4 is an entriely different view.

So as you see, it is an issue of semantics
Click to expand...
No, it is the issue of intent at the time the social contract called the constitution was written.

The bill of rights only enumerates rights, it does not grant them. Rights are inherent - therefore, seeking to eliminate my rights invalidates my agreement to remain civil and sociable, and returns us to a natural state of "every man for himself."
 
Reaper329 said:
not going to get into my background in history, but I assure you I am in fact correct. I do not argue that civilians made up the militia, so your capped verbeage is unnecessary.

However, lets apply that definition today, and look at dictionary.com for another view:

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

now with that said, it still is semantics. As which one do we choose to aply to modern standards? I do not know if you own guns, however lets assume for this argument that you do. Now the question is do you fit definiton #1, 2, 3, or 4? As #4 is an entriely different view.

So as you see, it is an issue of semantics
Click to expand...

What happens when its your own tyrannical government that you are called to fight against? It is NOT a matter of 'semantics' as that is expressly the reason why it was written into the constitution.
 
dsade said:
No, it is the issue of intent at the time the social contract called the constitution was written.

The bill of rights only enumerates rights, it does not grant them. Rights are inherent - therefore, seeking to eliminate my rights invalidates my agreement to remain civil and sociable, and returns us to a natural state of "every man for himself."
Click to expand...

Eloquent.
 
Reaper329 said:
not going to get into my background in history, but I assure you I am in fact correct. I do not argue that civilians made up the militia, so your capped verbeage is unnecessary.

However, lets apply that definition today, and look at dictionary.com for another view:

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

now with that said, it still is semantics. As which one do we choose to aply to modern standards? I do not know if you own guns, however lets assume for this argument that you do. Now the question is do you fit definiton #1, 2, 3, or 4? As #4 is an entriely different view.

So as you see, it is an issue of semantics
Click to expand...

It is not an issue of semantics.

The intent of the drafters of the constitution is clear. There is plenty of evidence showing this.

Either provide contrary evidence or concede the argument.

ETA: "Modern standards" do not matter. The Constitution is not a "living, breathing document" as liberals try to claim. What matters is the intent of the drafters of the document. Those intentions are clear.
 
Last edited:
jrkarp said:
ETA: "Modern standards" do not matter. The Constitution is not a "living, breathing document" as liberals try to claim. What matters is the intent of the drafters of the document. Those intentions are clear.
Click to expand...
actually you couldnt be more wrong. Most historians believe, as a result of the ability to change the constitution that it is in fact a living, breathing document
 
Reaper329 said:
actually you couldnt be more wrong. Most historians believe, as a result of the ability to change the constitution that it is in fact a living, breathing document
Click to expand...

The ability to amend it does not make it a living document. Amending the constitution does nothing to change the meaning of any part of the constitution - it either adds new material or replaces old provisions.
 
my final comment, I think many of you are missing my point, or are subjecting your own thoughts on what I am saying. All I am saying is that the second ammendment is not clear and concise. I have read what has been posted, and what courts have said, however, at the end of the day, as I have shown before the definition of militia encompasses quite a few ideas. Which in essence, makes it semantics.

So for all you card carrying members of the NRA or those who just like to have a gun, you can all take a collective sigh of relief, as you and I both know the government will never take them away, regardless of many issues that have arisen as a result of it.

Just out of curiosity, why do so many of you have them (directed of course at those who have said they do)? For protection? From what? How many break in or sitautions have you been involved in? Have you ever needed it? At the end of the day, I think it is foolish to assume you need one, specifically if it is a "just in case scenario" Just MHO
 
jrkarp said:
The ability to amend it does not make it a living document. Amending the constitution does nothing to change the meaning of any part of the constitution - it either adds new material or replaces old provisions.
Click to expand...
actually the ability to change can in fact change what was written, hoenstly take a look at the 14th and 15th ammend. and how they basically get rid of the 3/5 compromise (in essence).

Seems like a living document to me
 
Reaper329 said:
my final comment, I think many of you are missing my point, or are subjecting your own thoughts on what I am saying. All I am saying is that the second ammendment is not clear and concise. I have read what has been posted, and what courts have said, however, at the end of the day, as I have shown before the definition of militia encompasses quite a few ideas. Which in essence, makes it semantics.

So for all you card carrying members of the NRA or those who just like to have a gun, you can all take a collective sigh of relief, as you and I both know the government will never take them away, regardless of many issues that have arisen as a result of it.

Just out of curiosity, why do so many of you have them (directed of course at those who have said they do)? For protection? From what? How many break in or sitautions have you been involved in? Have you ever needed it? At the end of the day, I think it is foolish to assume you need one, specifically if it is a "just in case scenario" Just MHO
Click to expand...


Because I can.
 
Reaper329 said:
my final comment, I think many of you are missing my point, or are subjecting your own thoughts on what I am saying. All I am saying is that the second ammendment is not clear and concise. I have read what has been posted, and what courts have said, however, at the end of the day, as I have shown before the definition of militia encompasses quite a few ideas. Which in essence, makes it semantics.

So for all you card carrying members of the NRA or those who just like to have a gun, you can all take a collective sigh of relief, as you and I both know the government will never take them away, regardless of many issues that have arisen as a result of it.

Just out of curiosity, why do so many of you have them (directed of course at those who have said they do)? For protection? From what? How many break in or sitautions have you been involved in? Have you ever needed it? At the end of the day, I think it is foolish to assume you need one, specifically if it is a "just in case scenario" Just MHO
Click to expand...

In no particular order.

1. Shooting is fun
2. Hunting
3. Collecting
4. Personal protection
5. Because I can

If you are comfortable having no means to defend yourself, more power to you. I am not.
 
Reaper329 said:
actually the ability to change can in fact change what was written, hoenstly take a look at the 14th and 15th ammend. and how they basically get rid of the 3/5 compromise (in essence).

Seems like a living document to me
Click to expand...

It strikes the old provisions entirely. It removed the 3/5 compromise - it did not change it.
 
jrkarp said:
It strikes the old provisions entirely. It removed the 3/5 compromise - it did not change it.
Click to expand...
actually by removing it, that changes the document as a whole, hence the living and breathing aspect
 
(just being funny here) but we do know what Freud said about men who need to have "weapons" of this magnitude?
 
Reaper329 said:
Hey thats great, I guess we can use that logic for many things
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have stated 'to assist in violently overthrowing a government no longer the servant of its citizens, but the master of them.'

Or maybe better yet, just re-read this post:

Invalid Link Removed
 
jrkarp said:
Actually, Freud posited that fear of weapons was a sign that a person felt sexually inadequate.
Click to expand...
actually it is quite the opposite. in fact, men that nead weapons are trying to prove their manhood and possibly are a little smaller in a particualr region of the body:rofl:
 
Xodus said:
Perhaps I should have stated 'to assist in violently overthrowing a government no longer the servant of its citizens, but the master of them.'

Or maybe better yet, just re-read this post:

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
now you are talking. so should I expect to see you on the news soon?
 
Reaper329 said:
what you are saying makes no sense. Since I mentioned the 14th and 15th but never the 2nd. Sorry no semantics on this issue. THank you though
Click to expand...


You state that it is a 'living, breathing document', but when someone points out an instance where it is not, you say 'I wasn't talking about THAT one'
 
Xodus said:
You state that it is a 'living, breathing document', but when someone points out an instance where it is not, you say 'I wasn't talking about THAT one'
Click to expand...
actually you should read what I wrote.

now, just to clear up any confusion:

it IS a living breating document, if a new ammendment is instituted, it changes the document. Which of course makes it living and breathing. I never said that a new ammendment was ever created to change the 2nd amend. Please make sure we read to clearly understand what has been said.
 
Reaper329 said:
actually you should read what I wrote.

now, just to clear up any confusion:

it IS a living breating document, if a new ammendment is instituted, it changes the document. Which of course makes it living and breathing. I never said that a new ammendment was ever created to change the 2nd amend. Please make sure we read to clearly understand what has been said.
Click to expand...


Yawn...
 
EasyEJL said:
Find the statistics that show the number of legally purchased firearms that have been used to cause a death. Far more deaths a year from alchohol, tobacco, cars, etc. Even far more deaths a year from doctor malpractice.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention that.

Yesterday evening post work I was driving home when I picked a right wing talk-show on my Car radio(I live in Arizona). The broadcaster/DJ was a fierce gun proponent but he was battling hard to his own right wing listeners as to how to curtail guns going in the wrong hands in AZ.

What is wrong hands in AZ?

Well obviously the guns going in the hands of "people from South of the border". As it so happens there is a big chunk of people walking in to a Gun Shop, show them relevant papers(forged obviously), walk out with cache of firearms and then smuggle that cache to Mexico. So guess what free-gun-law is now giving way to Smuggling of Weapons across the border for Drug Cartel!! The Resident Cops are often outgunned, in some cases anti-tank cartridges has been used effectively piercing any form of Cavalar worn by these agencies.

This comes from the gun proponents mind you!
 
Reaper329 said:
my final comment, I think many of you are missing my point, or are subjecting your own thoughts on what I am saying. All I am saying is that the second ammendment is not clear and concise. I have read what has been posted, and what courts have said, however, at the end of the day, as I have shown before the definition of militia encompasses quite a few ideas. Which in essence, makes it semantics.

So for all you card carrying members of the NRA or those who just like to have a gun, you can all take a collective sigh of relief, as you and I both know the government will never take them away, regardless of many issues that have arisen as a result of it.

Just out of curiosity, why do so many of you have them (directed of course at those who have said they do)? For protection? From what? How many break in or sitautions have you been involved in? Have you ever needed it? At the end of the day, I think it is foolish to assume you need one, specifically if it is a "just in case scenario" Just MHO
Click to expand...
Ever NOT been armed in a situation where you needed it? Ever had someone break into your house?

Ever been harrassed by psychotic individuals threatening bodily harm to you or those you care about?

Some in government believe that THEY are the ones that decide which rights we can keep...but again - they do not give me my rights, they are mine - period. I have a right to defend myself, my family, AND my property from undue seizure, whether by criminals or a criminal government. Paranoid? How much property has been seized under the guise of law? How many houses and cars taken for victimless crimes?

It is up to the individual to stand up for their own, and others, rights...against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC - up to and including the very government.

Why do I have a gun? Because I have a right to have it and it is none of your business.
 
Reaper329 said:
actually it is quite the opposite. in fact, men that nead weapons are trying to prove their manhood and possibly are a little smaller in a particualr region of the body:rofl:
Click to expand...

Actually it is you who are incorrect.

In any case, your arguments continue to get weaker and weaker.
 
Reaper329 said:
actually you should read what I wrote.

now, just to clear up any confusion:

it IS a living breating document, if a new ammendment is instituted, it changes the document. Which of course makes it living and breathing. I never said that a new ammendment was ever created to change the 2nd amend. Please make sure we read to clearly understand what has been said.
Click to expand...

A new amendment does not change the meaning of the document. The "living breathing" theory holds that the meanings of the provisions somehow morph as society changes. It is that twisted logic that lets liberals claim that the 8th Amendment somehow prohibits capital punishment even though capital punishment is implicitly authorized by the 5th and 7th Amendments.

The "living breathing" theory has nothing to do with amendments, although its intellectually dishonest proponents try to tie them together in an attempt to gain credibility.
 
Last edited:
jrkarp said:
A new amendment not change the meaning of the document. The "living breathing" theory holds that the meanings of the provisions somehow morph as society changes. It is that twisted logic that lets liberals claim that the 8th Amendment somehow prohibits capital punishment even though capital punishment is implicitly authorized by the 5th and 7th Amendments.

The "living breathing" theory has nothing to do with amendments, although its intellectually dishonest proponents try to tie them together in an attempt to gain credibility.
Click to expand...

and by credibility you mean power.
 
Since this discussion is seemingly going in circles without an end in sight. I will say that we agree to disagree.

Take care
 
Reaper329 said:
my final comment, I think many of you are missing my point, or are subjecting your own thoughts on what I am saying. All I am saying is that the second ammendment is not clear and concise. I have read what has been posted, and what courts have said, however, at the end of the day, as I have shown before the definition of militia encompasses quite a few ideas. Which in essence, makes it semantics.

So for all you card carrying members of the NRA or those who just like to have a gun, you can all take a collective sigh of relief, as you and I both know the government will never take them away, regardless of many issues that have arisen as a result of it.

Just out of curiosity, why do so many of you have them (directed of course at those who have said they do)? For protection? From what? How many break in or sitautions have you been involved in? Have you ever needed it? At the end of the day, I think it is foolish to assume you need one, specifically if it is a "just in case scenario" Just MHO
Click to expand...

Right now I'm within reach of about 7 firearms in a cabinet behind me. Reasons: Shooting is fun. Hunting is fun. Self defense. It's my right to have them.

For the people who say "Well how many times have you needed a gun that you have to carry, the chances of something happening are slim to none." While I hope that they are right and I never have to use a firearm in self defense, I'd much rather have one with me and not need it than not have it and wish I did. It only takes one situation where you need it for your life to end. God forbid I'm ever in a public place and some loony starts to shoot people. I wont be one of the people who curl up in a ball and wait for them to come shoot me. I'd rather take an active role in weather or not my life is going to end that day.
 
I am very liberal, however I am firm believer in our constitution and therefore support the Second amendment. I believe that as long as one is a law abiding invidual without a violent criminal record, or mental illnesses I have no problem with people owning guns. My only reservations are with fully automatic assault weapons which I believe are a bit too much for most hunters and residents who want guns for sport or protection. Also the premise behind the Second Amendment which is that a government should have some fear and be able to be checked by its citizenry if it wished to devulge into a tyranny, is one reason I believe that a reasonably armed citizenry is perhaps a good thing in a democratic society.
 
teribleturtle said:
I am very liberal, however I am firm believer in our constitution and therefore support the Second amendment. I believe that as long as one is a law abiding invidual without a violent criminal record, or mental illnesses I have no problem with people owning guns. My only reservations are with fully automatic assault weapons which I believe are a bit too much for most hunters and residents who want guns for sport or protection. Also the premise behind the Second Amendment which is that a government should have some fear and be able to be checked by its citizenry if it wished to devulge into a tyranny, is one reason I believe that a reasonably armed citizenry is perhaps a good thing in a democratic society.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your comment - there are some liberals out there who respect the 2nd as much as the other amendments, though you are in the minority.

You are aware that fully automatic weapons are extensively and tightly regulated by federal law, and that the "assault weapons ban" had nothing to do with machine guns, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top