First of all I doubt that percentage is correct. Secondly, that has no bearing on the second amendment. The right is guaranteed regardless unless and until the states ratify a change.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
|
First of all I doubt that percentage is correct. Secondly, that has no bearing on the second amendment. The right is guaranteed regardless unless and until the states ratify a change.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Greenie handyguy, I have to agree, there are no deterrents in the system, just higher education to make a criminal better. And police can only react after the fact in most cases, and the perp is long gone.
A complex problem indeed.
Fear of losing their jobs by supporting reasonable gun control/safety, that most agree with anyway. And an NRA shilling for the gun manufacturers. 4 million members of the NRA and most agree with the rest of the population on reasonable solutions for gun safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
90% of my friends are hunters but what surprised me was NONE of them where members of the NRA. They would rather buy more hunting and fishing stuff with that membership money. Other clubs have better discounts on "stuff".
Rights are one thing, practicality another. There are certain weapons it is undesirable to allow in the hands of the general population, banning such weapons does not prevent weapon ownership. The Constitution is not prescriptive as to what form arms might take, but it is unlikely it suggests any and all arms should exist in the general population when the founders couldn't see beyond the end of their muzzle loading muskets and swords were still in use
One of my best friends has a working cannon, get over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Legally or otherwise, I wonder is stupidity a rightQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
He isn't from Chicago. He lived here for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Handyman2007
Chicago is in the throes of improving education, especially to keep kids in school for the long haul, increasing the number of after-school activities, taking back neighborhoods block by block, etc. I'm thinking there is a future for preventing gang activity with the use of mini drones.
According to our stupid secretary of state it is, but the stupid part here is thinking a guy that can build a working cannon is the stupid one.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE91P0HJ20130226?irpc=932
I do not know where that 35% comes from but I think it is more regional. If you live in New Hampshire or Maine , I think it is around 80%. New York City, less than 2%. So the 35% is a real shot in the dark, excuse the pun. But gun sales are way up and the amount of LEGALLY owned guns in this country is close to 250 million.
The only people taking back the neighborhoods are the thugs and gangsters. Don't let the liberal media candy coat the actual facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
So you are saying owning a gun is stupid?
It's not from the media. It's from professionals I know who are hard at work in Chicago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Handyman2007
Really. Officials in Chicago. Do you really know Chicago's history?
That's not what the Federalist papers make abundantly clear... it does very clearly demostrate the people have the same access to the same weapons the government would use to prevent a tyrannical government exactly like the one we fought a war to free ourselves from... specifically the British government.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Here's a situation. A city is under siege by the US Military. Who has the advantage- the military with their tanks and automatic weapons or the citizens with their semi auto arms and 20 times the numbers of military personnel and the knowledge of the city.
And you are correct, there is no absolute description of what weapons or arms that can be owned. There is nothing stating anything about carrying concealed weapons. There is nothing stating that a citizen cannot own a mortar or grenade launcher. The Government has decided that for us. Do you know that Constitutionally and according to Federal Firearms possession laws, a police officer, either local OR state has no authority to take your weapons unless you are suspected of a crime. If I am stopped on my way top the target range and get stopped by the police for a traffic stop and I am in possession of my legally registered firearm, they have no authority to take possession of it. NONE.
I said professionals, not officials. I've lived here since 1963, and my father was a native, so yes, I know Chicago's history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Handyman2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handyman2007
You see there's the rub the Constitution doesn't say anything about crime in relation to arms, the thinking hadn't got that far, but no one challences that a criminal should not be disarmed, so it naturally follows that certain situations are excepted.Quote:
Do you know that Constitutionally and according to Federal Firearms possession laws, a police officer, either local OR state has no authority to take your weapons unless you are suspected of a crime
The idea that an armed population would be successful in repelling a well armed force of trained troops in the twenty-first century is fantasy. Urban warfare is the worst sort of warfare, high casuality rate and slow progress and there may be some successes but fire power will prevail. Perhaps the fantasy is bouyed by the success of insurgencies in Libya and maybe Syria, but that sort of thinking is very out of date. In Libya the insurgents had help and it took months, in Syria the insurgents have not had help and it goes on relentlessly. You have a standing army to protect against invasion, you have a police force to stop crime, You don't need semi automatic military style weapons or any other military weapon
The sack of Washington in 1814 proved conclusively that relying on a militia to defend against a military force was fantasy but you still cling to the idea
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
That's the typical liberal argument...
If there really isn't a chance the people could overthrow a tyranical socialist government... then why are the people that lean socialist so concerneed about denying the people their constitutional right to own guns... except that maybe that assumption is wrong? And that only the most hard core socialists/ communists in the Military at that moment would not stop attacking an armed populace that is fighting back.
You don't get it, it isn't about denying a right, it is about removing a threat, about protecting the innocents. Again it is fantasy that an armed population is going to stop a mass murder or any murder for that matter, for that to happen everyone would have to carrying and willing to get involved. Vigilantism is not a solution. It is fantasy that an armed population is going to rise up and take back the streets, there surely has been enough provocation and it hasn't happened. Where is this threat to the population you speak of, it is in your mind! The day of the cowboy is overQuote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
IT IS ABOUT DENYING A RIGHT... trying to say or claim anything else is nothing but smoke and mirrors. And a typical liberal tactic. Change the topic.. call it anything else... do anything but call it what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Luntics running looses on the st4reets are a threat... yet they are allowed to run free...
Illegals are a threat yet they aren't being removed... Socialists and COmmunists are a threat and yet they are allowed to run free... people with criminal records that are repeat offenders are allowed to run free..
Want to talk about real threats... those are the real threats people face every day... not people owning guns legally who actually have a legal RIGHT to have them... something none of the previous threats have...
Hello smoothy:
I'm not a threat. Commies, socialists and your local leaf blower aren't threats either..Quote:
people with criminal records that are repeat offenders are allowed to run free..
I thought right wingers loved the Constitution... No, huh?
Excon
I get it, I have a right to keep and bear arms. Get over it.
Meanwhile, a Maryland legislator is pushing back against the silliness...
Smart kid. I particularly like this portion of the bill:Quote:
‘Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act’ proposed in Maryland
A Maryland state senator has crafted a bill to curb the zeal of public school officials who are tempted to suspend students as young as kindergarten for having things — or talking about things, or eating things — that represent guns, but aren’t actually anything like real guns.
Sen. J. B. Jennings, a Republican who represents Baltimore Harford Counties, introduced “The Reasonable School Discipline Act of 2013″ on Thursday, reports The Star Democrat.
“We really need to re-evaluate how kids are punished,” Jennings told The Star Democrat. “These kids can’t comprehend what they are doing or the ramifications of their actions.”
“These suspensions are going on their permanent records and could have lasting effects on their educations,” he added.
A nationwide flurry of suspensions seemed to reach an absurd level recently when Josh Welch, a second-grader at Park Elementary School in Baltimore, Maryland, was suspended for two days because his teacher thought he shaped a strawberry, pre-baked toaster pastry into something resembling a gun. (RELATED: Second-grader suspended for breakfast pastry)
“I just kept on biting it and biting it and tore off the top of it and kind of looked like a gun,” the seven-year-old told Fox News.
“But it wasn’t,” he astutely added.
I love it.Quote:
The bill also includes a section mandating counseling for school officials who fail to distinguish between guns and things that resemble guns. School officials who fail to make such a distinction more than once would face discipline themselves.
Repeat offenders commit crimes... repeat offenders commit more than the two crimes they were convicted of... repeat offenders by definition don't stop after their first crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Communists and Socialists want the contitution gone because it prevents most of their policies... so they can impose their tyranny on the people.
The differences are... we have a written right to bear arms... the others have no rights to continue their behaviour specifically in writing...
What bill of rights specifically give the criminals.. the Socialists or the communists or the Lunatics... by name... the unabated right to do what they do? And what number would that one be?
Hello again, smoothy:
I'M a repeat offender. In fact, I'm committing a felony AS we speak. I'm going to do it again, too. Fully HALF of the people you lock up are like me. We owe you NOTHING.
Wanting the Constitution gone is Constitutionally protected thought. You might not LIKE what they think, but they have the RIGHT to think it. There's nothing illegal about BEING a lunatic either.
Where did you learn about the Constitution? Montgomery Wards?
excon
Early this AM in gun-free DC.
Eleven people shot on D.C. street corner overnight - The Washington Post
Yes they had a constitutional right to dieQuote:
Originally Posted by smearcase
I apparently know far more about it than you do...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Next time some repeat offender breaks in and beats the crap out of you during a robbery... keep your own words in mind... or the next time a repeat offender robs and kills someone close to you.
If you was younger and still had small children.. if some repeat offender Childmolestor got a hold of one of your kids... remember they don't owe you anything.
Like how often does that happen Smoothy, you have a three strike rule so there is a window there and little else, again nothing says you can't own a gun but remember you just might be putting a weapon in the hands of that offender. You don't need a semi automatic with a large magazine to defend yourself
I and every other American have the RIGHT to any damn gun we want... and until the government itself restricts itself to what kind THEY have... they have less than NO excuse to dictate to anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Why exactly does a police force need grenades and fully automatic weapons for anyway? I expect to hear a really good answer there... because they aren't the Military... and in the USA. No paramilitary Police force exists.
I know this might really upset you lefties... but I can actually own a Class 3 firearm if I so desire (look it up, It's for REAL assault weapons... not what the morons on the left THINK are assault weapons)... That actually requires a license... because there is no legal justification for a rejection if I so applied for it (my background actually is clean Unlike Obamas)... because I actually live in a state that believes in the Constitution.
They would also HAVE to give me a Concealed carry permit if I apply for the very same reason.. I think I might just get one of those just for sh*ts and grins.
The bottom line here is the FACT that the Second Amendment gives every American citizen the specific right to own firearms.That is the law. There is nothing in the amendment that specifically describes what type can or cannot be owned and the fact of what smoothy said reinforces that fact. If I want to own a fully automatic Tommy Gun,, I have to apply for a permit from the Government. If I have absolutely no type of criminal record, I CANNOT be denied that permit and firearm CONSTITUTIONALLY. If I were, The Supreme Court would over ride the decision as unconstitutional because there would no valid reason why I cannot own that weapon. It's simple. This argument has gone on for over 200 years and the law abiding citizens of this country ALWAYS prevail.
Do you think it might be because you have an armed population and the police want to outgun their opponents. In any case isn't SWAT a paramilitary force within the various police forces. If you didn't have an armed population full of loonies it wouldn't be necessaryQuote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Have you ever been here? I drive the streets every day and I've never seen "an armed population full of loonies," and I live in Texas where we all ride horses and still have gun fights on the street at noon.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Police are regarded as the first line in maintaining civil order, law enforcement and protection. Police have the power to use legal force when necessary to maintain this order.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
In consultation with the states and local law enforcement commands police would be given the weaponry necessary to achieve these aims.
I think you will probably find this is close to the answer.
More like to assure the government can oppress the people when it gets down to it... because the people have the right to the very same weapons... as a defense against a government gone overboard...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Well that certainly explains it!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Justice Scalia on the types of weapons that fall OUTSIDE of the Second Amendment:
If the purpose of the Second amendment is to ensure an armed militia, then we might think that it especially protects just these weapons that are made useful in military service.
In modern times, that would mean machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, tanks and other such heavy weaponry. But recognizing the danger such weapons in private possession would pose they fall outside the Second Amendment.
But apparenty it doesn't preclude muzzle loading cannons. You see Tut the definition of machine gun is a little vague but I would agree the founders really didn't see beyond single shot rifles, single shot hand guns and and even single shot cannon? Such weapons were common for many decades later. In the early days they overcame this by carrying as many guns as was practical and this thinking pervails todayQuote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Machine guns are legal if you get a special license. Same with Silencers... those are class 3 firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
I don't have one because I don't have the money for one just for the sake of having it... but if I wanted to... I could have one... legally.
The Police have no more legitimate need for a machine gun that I do... or is that really the intention of the left... to eventually impose their tyranny on the population? There is no other legitimate reason than that.
We can legally own a cannon... in fact many hobbyists do... functioning ones, that shoot real projectiles... and not just make noise..Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
And there are enough of them to protect us from the evil federal government? Anyone have drones or nuclear bombs?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
The states have the right to impose certain rules and regulations when it comes to weapons. Such things as licenses, restrictions on certain types of hardware, gun free zones, police having the right to certain types of weapons; all would fall inside the parameters of the Second Amendment.
A more specific example would be:
If you feel as though it is not constitutional for police to be armed with certain types of weapons then you can take the case to the Supreme Court. However, I am confident there would be a 9/0 ruling against your claim.
Justice Scalia is a conservative SCOTUS judge.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:54 AM. |