Message boards :
Politics :
Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Terror Australis Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1817 Credit: 262,693,308 RAC: 44 |
The next amendment is: "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." Maybe the crux of the argument is in those first three words ? It would appear that they give the government the power to regulate the militia. i.e. The government could make it compulsory for a gun owner to be a member of a registered militia group and to attend training once a month, rather than the current "open slather" approach. T.A. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
The next amendment is: "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." It is much the same in my state Constitution. As a matter of fact a Federal Judge told my state they had 180 days to allow the citizen to carry a weapon, concealed. If my elected did not the Judge will do it for them. In my Federal Constitution there is to be no STANDING army within my Country. This leads to it's misuse. Ergo the Posse Comitatus Act. I'm so sure that someone will speak out of turn here that I will correct it now so no one will make a mistake. We have had a standing Navy, it was meant to be so even in our founding, shipping needs 100% protection, as much as we can anyhow, our founders knew that. In this day and age we can see that need also in the air--for the same reason. However, a standing army isn't something we need. A hardened militia standing on their own ground cannot be beaten. They will hold till the numbers are in their favor. This is wholly the reason and intent of the law. This is a right, a given, as I believe and will not bend on, a God given right. The Bill of Rights are NOTHING that can be bartered on. There is NO give or take on such things. The Rule of Law is not fungible nor is it a LIVING document that changes with the times. Man has not changed, what motivates mankind has not changed since the dawn of time. Why would one think that such laws written in the 16th and 17th century would need to change? And I can see the mouths open and mistakes made once again, so I will correct their mistakes now before they make fools of themselves again. I'm not a sexist either. Nor was our founders, some yes. Just like slavery many wanted full rights to all--people. So, so many battles, just like the slavery issue would have torn this Country apart before it even began. Our founders wrote the Constitution as a SET law, but allowed us to change it and the very act of change is SO hard that we all MUST really want it. We did, that battle was fought later and won. Our PERSONAL rights are within our Bill of Rights. When people band together as a town, city, and later state does not our rights also reflect in numbers. Does not the state and nation use them rights collectively? In the basics, yes but just the basics. But it is in the breaking of them rights down to the one, that we are allowed true freedom. And the militia tells the government the rights of the freeman. It isn't the other way around. Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick... |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30640 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
FOSS is good ... Free CAD is better! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iwkX8sWSxNQ Just hit print! |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
if printable guns do not make arguments for gun control obsolete what does? this is ever more so for high power air guns. |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
The next amendment is: "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." the English language is a wonderful and intricate thing Amendment II 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. this is the actual way that the second amendment is written if you look at where the commas are you will notice that there is 2 more that what you wrote, and as any English teacher will tell you commas are used to separate concepts. these the concepts are 1 a well regulated militia is necessary 2. that all states should be free in and of themselves 3. that and armed populace is necessarily to insure the first 2 as such although our founding fathers felt that a militia was necessary it is a separate concept from whether or not we should be able to keep and bare arms. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30640 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Another USA only problem ... http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/27/world/europe/switzerland-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 An employee killed two other people before fatally shooting himself at a lumber plant near the central Swiss city of Lucerne on Wednesday, local media reported. |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
This speech by Bill Whittle as 'virtual president' pretty well sums up my views on gun control and the reasons it should not be expanded here, and the reasons many in the government want to expand it. And specifically, he echos my statements posted earlier about what the 2nd amendment is really about. Bill Whittle. "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11361 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
IMO, people who are unable to control their temper should not own weapons. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30640 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
IMO, people who are unable to control their temper should not own weapons. Any weapon. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
IMO, people who are unable to control their temper should not own weapons. What if one can control one's temper 99.44% of the time? To paraphrase a recent post of mine, "I'm so glad people who can control their tempers come with t-shirts with some symbol indicating this emblazoned on it, that temper tantrum throwers never are able to purchase such t-shirts, and that all such t-shirt wearers will maintain such an approach the rest of their lives (hence always being able to wear the t-shirt)." Put another way: I treat even the supposed good guys with much healthy skepticism. |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11361 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
We have seen temper tantrums here. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30640 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
We have seen temper tantrums here. We have. And the tools the mods have are about the same as you use to control a child, a "time out." But a temper tantrum here does not have the same results as one in a bar full of other drunks. As to 99.44%'ers first we need to define what control is. Control is not getting into physical altercations. Anyone who is 0.56% out of control that way is going to end up in jail, or a mental institution where they belong, thus ending their access to weapons. Perhaps the phrase "road rage" has some application here. |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
Robert A. Heinlein “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.†|
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
We have seen temper tantrums here. To respond to this and the next post: Lock and Key Perhaps many of us know the great band Rush and recognize the lyrics. ANYONE can snap. ANYONE. I posted about the medulla oblongata here 5-6 years ago. The degree to which someone snaps can vary. But, worse, whether the person who snaps is caught before recovering that "civilized veneer" ... ? |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
I am 53 and as an adult I have never thrown a punch in anger though several times I have stopped violence that was in front of me, even when it scared the piss out of me. I do not claim to be a paragon of virtue, but I have been willing to do what I can to protect the little piece of the world I live in. big answers are for someone else. I feel that if more people would do the say the world would be a nicer place. can you say the same? |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
I am 53 and as an adult I have never thrown a punch in anger though several times Well, I can say that, while I have thrown a small number of punches, to the best of my recollection most or all were in self-defense. Am I not allowed that? Can I say the same of what? Trying to make the world a nicer place? If you are not a "paragon of virtue", you too have the capacity to snap at some point. Like I said, everyone has the capacity. |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
no doubt you are correct but so far I have not and as a matter of personal choice I would rather take my self out rather than become such a loss cannon. I take responsibility for my actions rather than blame my childhood or society. and for though's that are weak get strong I did it can be done. even if your brain chemistry is off enough to make you crazy this too can be over come to some extent, how you live is choice if there is to much stress do something else. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30640 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
If you are not a "paragon of virtue", you too have the capacity to snap at some point. Like I said, everyone has the capacity. Such as when you find your spouse in bed with another person? Jealousy is a requirement for that. Not everyone is jealous. I've got news for you. While the capacity to snap and strike out violently is present in the majority, it is not universal. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
I've got news for you. While the capacity to snap and strike out violently is present in the majority, it is not universal. I'm sorry, but that sounds like an opinion to me. If it weren't, I think you would have already provided some links. If not, please enlighten me and provide some of those links. In the meantime, I would say that we all have the capacity because of the reptilian portion of our evolution. How we react, to twist what dancer42 said a bit, is what matters: we can manage the feelings of jealousy, etc. ... . (If some portion of humanity has evolved in the direction of Data, please let me know. Even Spock had to manage his boiling half Vulcan blood.) |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Such as when you find your spouse in bed with another person? Jealousy is a requirement for that. Not everyone is jealous. P.S.-rut roh! Did you just make an argument for socialistic treatment of male/female relations?!? |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.