Here Today... Gone To Hell!

so what do ya reckon??

lets talk about this seriously then, i think you mods can hack it without a pathetic thread lock ???

Jarmo must be in a good mood.  How you havent been banned from the board is beyond me.

are you able to talk about this seriously? rationally? As a proud Canadian who did live in the U.S for 5 years, I had my eyes opened...people in the U.S are just culturally different, just as in other parts of the world. Firearms are just part of their culture realistically speaking...isn't it Texas that a 12 yr old boy has a 'right of passage' of sorts to go hunting with his father and other male relatives...not to mention as a U.S. citizen, they have a right to bear arms to protect family and property? Since the beginning of the "Colonies" ?firearms have always and forever been part of their lives...it is simple. Good Lord...what next? Canadians have the reputation of being 'too kind' ?'too polite' are we the 'rollovers' of the world? ?::) if a 'product' (being guns) are readily available anywhere in the world, people are going to aquire them for better of for worse...this is NOT a U.S. problem...wake up and read the world news....believe me...anything is News sometimes in the U.S or any country for that matter..stayed tuned...someone farted in Washington on Thursday and he didn't have a gun...forgive the sarcasm but I cannot see how you can be so damn narrow-minded. Stop pissing me off with your stupidity.

watch "Bowling for Columbine"

it explains Amarica and thier fasination with guns

This will probably get locked again.

But I think there is too much money (read NRA) pumped into our pukes in D.C. to ever get a hold of this realistically.

And I should point out that I never argued people's "right to bear arms" but rather the fact that it is taken out of context and NOT FULLY QUOTED on purpose. Seemed like people were taking only half of what I was saying and attacking that. Which makes sense since they would use half a quote in support of guns anyway. ::)

What does this mean to you?

"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."

Think of when it was written and what it meant then. At that time "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. Not assault weapons (Bush lifted the ban on these weapons -NRA is a big backer for Bush obviously).

A regulated Militia....

An armed citizenry, at the time considered essential to ward off tryanny or government interference. To defend the state and aid the Army. The Militias died off a little after the civil war.

Only place you are going to see a regulated Milita these days is up in Montana, or Idaho. The nutjobs up there who think there is a government conspiracy against their way off life; and they'll be ready for it when "it" happens.

I'd like to see the stats of people actually using a gun to protect themselves in their own home. Compared to the accidents and school shootings that happen because the eaze of gun access in this country. Most guns are stolen from suburban homes and taken back into the inner city where they are sold/used to commit crimes as well.

It's the dipshits who cling to their misunderstood "2cd Ammendment right", living in a gated community, driving a gas hog SUVs, with their American flag magnet on the back of it (which is made in China), who love guns in this country. Those who live by fear, go out and buy guns "for protection" in this country.

This is a fear based country. Fear drives people to do many different things, not limited to, owning a gun.

were getting somwhere now, this is good!!

Constant personal attacks and continuing a topic that was just locked, the guy would've been long gone pretty much anywhere else.

As America is the most hated country on this earth, and will be invaded one day i say never disarm the american population. A disarmed population is a helpless population. No invading army can defeat a nation if the people of that nation are well armed and want to fight for freedom. Screw the anti-gun lobby.

As an aside, deer tastes better than any factory farmed meat. Anti-gun fanatics ought to go hunting, that would quickly change their minds!  :beer:

Last time it was locked because of you.

Keep that in mind.



/jarmo

Why is this rubbish not deleted immedietly? What is happening to this board, is it no longer possible to find a 'sensible thread'?


Is that:

Based on a survey conducted over the last 10 years by the UN?

Or is that ur opinion?

Because u dislike America doesn't mean much


By who? The USSR?


For fear of invasion. Got it. I must say its my no. 1 concern too.

I guess the last history book u read was published in 1902?


*Shakes head*

This board has taken a nose dive of late, what has happened to people's common sense?


There u have it folks - we need guns to protect against invasion. That no 'significant' nation has invaded another 'significant' nation since 1945 is purely irrelvant

Matt88 - go have a lie down, don't drag the board even further down than Clintron and Horsey and that gang already have.

even john kerry (the avid hunter that he is  :rofl:) preaches about the right to own guns. i guess he doesn't understand the constitution either.

the assault weapons ban was a joke. clinton created it to make all the scared (and uninformed, uneducated) libreals think he was doing something to protect them. it was worthless and did nothing to cut down on gun violence.

and it is a key reason the republicans control washington now. he created it in 1994. then the NRA made sure republicans took control of the house. it's been all downhill for the dems in washington ever since. 

That's a pretty ignorant statement, and I resent that. I know plenty of people who have bought guns, not on the basis of "fear." As someone said before, guns are used in hunting. There is also a little thing called target shooting. That's where people shoot at....guess what....targets. Not people. It's a hobby.? :nervous: :nervous: Now I know that it might sound impossible that there are people in this country who buy guns for these purposes, but let me assure you, it happens. :yes: Don't be so quick so label every person who owns a gun a crazy right wing nutjob who's afraid of the boogy man breaking into their house.

Ah blow urself smartarse keep ur own pigheaded opinions to myself. Because of an opinion i'm dragging the board down ::) Don't u ever fuckin make me think im draggin the htgth msg board down cos of 4 odd lines of my own opinion.

I do not get how any person could take this man and his films serious...  he's taken you all for a trip and fatten his pocket at the same time

U mean your self :hihi: :rofl:

Why would i need to keep my own opinions to myself if u do not do the same?

Pigheaded? I think sensible is the word your looking for. Read your original posts again - does that strike u as sensible, does it?



U are clearly shockingly ignorant and naive as to the current state of the world - such opinions hardly 'add' anything. We were trying to debate guns laws, maybe u missed that?



Hey don't cry, its okay :hihi:

You are reducing the board to nonsensical ramblings

Some of us enjoy a spirited sensible conversation - the board has many intellects with intresting views, your views however are nonsense

If u post rubbish i'll post a reply, i don't believe the world should allow idiots to run free: the need for guns in America to protect against invasion, wonderful!

If u have a sensible opinion and i disgree thats great, but mouthing off about invasions in 2005 is frankly absurd, u know the History Channel? Well its not the same thing as CNN!

Anyway i have to go now, i fear the Russians are massing in the English Channel and need to arm myself :rofl:

Fear driven talk.....

You still have not posted any data on this.

Where are the hard facts?

Bring 'em out.

That's a pretty ignorant statement, and I resent that. I know plenty of people who have bought guns, not on the basis of "fear."

Nobody says they are scared. Turn on the TV and tell me it's not a never ending cycle of fear being broadcast all day long.

As someone said before, guns are used in hunting.

Yea, we all need assault weapons to take a deer down.

There is also a little thing called target shooting. That's where people shoot at....guess what....targets. Not people. It's a hobby.

I think anybody would have realized I was not referring to hunters or sportsman.

  Don't be so quick so label every person who owns a gun a crazy right wing nutjob who's afraid of the boogy man breaking into their house.

I'm not. But in my personal experience I see little 5 foot women driving these suburban assault vehicles to the supermarket, then back behind their "safe" gated community, and to a home with a gun in it. You can't deny the psychology of these possessions Americans today seek out, including owning a gun. Big tough SUV, fortress entrance to where they live, a home with an alarm on during the day, and a gun by the bed.

You are going to tell me that as much as media influences this country as a nation, that none of our purchases and choices are driven by fear?

Why did people all of a sudden need SUVs in this country? You think it was the people who decided to buy 50k trucks that get 13 MPG? Or do you think that they were sold it? The main reason people buy this things are complete ego, the feeling of power, and the false feeling of being safer (which they are not). Same mindset that drives them (no pun intended) to buy a gun. Sound familar? Just like owning a gun: ego, feeling of power and false feeling of being safer.

Actually, most Constitutional scholars believe that the 2nd amendment was meant to be an individual right.  Here are some of the textual reasons why your reading is wrong:  The term "Militia" did not have the meaning back in 1787 that you and many of the proponents of your view give it.  The Virginia Bill of Rights, where the phrase was taken from, defined Militia as: "the body of the people, trained to arms."  Madison also took this interpretation in Federalist 46, in saying that it provide a readily defense of liberty against the standing army that the Constitution proposed.  Also, it is an odd place to find a provision about a guarantee for a militia in a list of individual rights.

Now Im not goint to argue that policy wise there should be an unfettered right to bear arms.  In fact, I think it should definately be regulated.  However, the meaning that liberals attach to the 2nd Amendment is completely wrong.  Instead of changing the meaning of the amendment (which is the usual approach to liberal change of the Constitution), they should try and change it by amendment.  Do it democratically instead of trying to argue that the Second Amendment doesnt mean what it actually says.  This is the problem with the judges on the far left, the create rights that they believe should exist in the Constitution, and they take out those that they dont believe should exist.  It is a rewriting of the Constitution.  Liberals make it sound like the Judiciary only promotes liberty and individual rights, however, they always ignore the rights that have been diminished and written out of the Constitution.

A proposal for rational gun control

Although I would personally like to see as many civilian-owned guns eliminated from mainstream society as possible, I realize that this is not a politically realistic goal. Thus, I present my own plans for gun control that I would consider a valid compromise. Perhaps policy discussions can start from these.

1. A national system for registering guns and ammunition. Part of the reason New York City has stiff gun laws and high gun death rates is that anybody can go from New York to a state with less restrictive laws, get a friend who lives in the state to buy the guns for them, and take those guns back to NYC. (Yes, I am aware this is illegal, but it happens.) First, a national system would prevent this by scaring those "friends" into not buying the guns legally and selling them illegally, for if the guns are used in an illegal crime, that person can be held accountable. Second, a national system would be more helpful in tracking crimes after they have happened, to bring the perpetrators to justice.

2. Instant background checks on people attempting to buy guns or ammunition. Brady is still patchwork, and does indeed have its flaws in tracking felons. Felons and ex-cons should not have access to weapons, and many misdemeanors and juvenile crimes should also count against a person's record.

3. Stiffer sentences for gun crimes. This has been the position of the NRA for quite some time, and it is certainly one with which I agree.

4. Gun education. Many guns are involved in accidents that could easily have been prevented by a little care or forethought. Perhaps gun purchasers should be required to take lessons in gun safety, at the purchaser's expense. Again, the NRA has long been a proponent of gun education.

5. General education. Study after study has concluded that there is a direct correlation between lack of education and violent crime. Every dollar spent on education now will prevent countless dollars worth of crime damage in the future. Think of all the private and public funds used to pay for gun violence -- hospital bills, funerals, insurance bills, the actual cost of buying firearms. Now invest that money in education, and watch the crime rate drop.

6. Hand grip ID tagging. This is technologically probably still in the future, but it would be a good goal to work for. The theory is, each gun is "registered" to one's person palm prints (the legal purchaser of the gun), and only that person can fire that gun. If another person tries, the gun simply will not fire. Thus, stolen guns become useless, and cannot be used to harm anybody in the course of a crime.


http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm#A%20proposal%20for%20rational%20gun



though this was pretty interesting.

Responding to the Pro Gun Cliches
For far too long, people's views of the gun control issue have been driven by the slogans, cliches and rhetoric of the gun lobby. Since becoming a gun control advocate, I've heard them all--and I learned to respond to them all!

At one time the simplest cliches were sufficient--ones like, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." As Americans have grown more concerned with the level of gun violence, those simple cliches don't work any more. Other phrases, such as "law abiding citizens," "we already have 20,000 gun laws," and "one more law won't stop criminals" have become common props for the gun lobby.

In the end, those simplistic cliches and slogans don't solve our gun violence problem. Only action on a variety of fronts will address this shameful problem. But the gun lobby will continue to trot out its cliches, so I'm providing my brief responses to each of them. Since the cliches of gun supporters are short, mine will be the same.

These gun control advocates just want to take away our guns!
Well, some do. But most of us respect hunters and collectors and others with a legitimate need for guns. We just want to do more to close loopholes, keep them from children and irresponsible users, and make society safer. Besides, with more than 220 million firearms in this country, taking away guns would be impossible!

It's unfair to punish responsible gun owners with restrictive laws just because of the acts of irresponsible gun owners!
That's true. Life can be unfair. The problem is, it's tough to define a "responsible" gun owner. One way to do that is to conduct a background check when selling a gun, to at least make sure the buyer isn't a felon or wife beater. But many pro gun advocates aren't even willing to support that type of step.

Furthermore, we don't wear labels that say we're responsible. Today's responsible gun owner can become angry and use it in anger, as we see all too often. We can't write laws that define "responsible" owners and exempt them from all laws--laws must be written for all.

If we lock up criminals and keep them there, we'd have no problem!
This country has been doing that: prison sentences have been lengthened and we've built thousands more prison cells. And what has happened? Still more shootings, by others not (yet) in jail.

The fact is that not everyone who uses a gun illegally is a felon before that moment. The boys who killed my son became felons when they took possession of the 9mm handgun and pulled the trigger. Even if they had been arrested for the threats they had made, they would not have been locked up for life. The fact is that guns are too plentiful and too easy to come by.

When guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns.
As pointed out earlier, it is not the goal of most gun control advocates to remove all existing guns-200 million firearms is too many to remove! We're talking about the kinds of guns available, the capacity of gun clips, and reasonable controls on access.

More important, there is the irony of their statement! Gun supporters worry so much about criminals with guns. But one thing that enables criminals to have such an arsenal of guns is the sheer volume of guns and the ease of purchasing guns in this country-something that the NRA and others have promoted! Go figure!

We need guns for our protection! You can't take away this right.
Well, our family has managed to get by without a gun all our lives, but we understand others may feel safer with them. But does one need a 357 Magnum to protect their home? Or an AK-47? No. There are only people who want them, not need them.

We believe that it's time America say we can't afford the risk of these dangerous weapons. Besides, studies have shown that far more people are killed by their own guns (or because of them) than are used to protect their own lives.

We need weapons to protect ourselves from a tyrannical federal government.
No, we need to protect ourselves from those who say they need weapons to protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government! No reasonable person thinks the U.S. Military is going to be engaged in hand-to-hand, door-to-door combat with civilians. They would face mutiny. No, logically a tyrannical minded army would use its arsenal of far more powerful weapons. So shall we allow people to have bazookas? Tanks? Rocket Launchers? Surface to Air Missiles? ICBMs? Why not just let us all have our own nuclear weapons? Where does it all end?

Isn't it time that America say it's had enough with the dangerous, paranoid, militia types who promote conspiracy theories and maintain their own weapons arsenals? We've seen the hateful consequences of these people in Oklahoma City, Montana, and other places.

What have you got against the NRA, anyway? They're not the enemy!
Sure, when they are involved in safety programs, they're a good organization, and we respect many of its members. But the NRA has a dark side. They fought the Brady Bill, the assault weapons ban, and most gun control legislation. For that they deserve our condemnation.

The NRA is unduly influenced by a group of people who promote unfettered access to guns and high-powered weapons. This is counter to the beliefs of most Americans, and it has also led to many moderates leaving the NRA.

Automobiles kill 40,000 people a year. Nobody's calling for THEIR elimination!
How ironic to hear this statement from gun supporters! No, people don't call for eliminating cars. But because they can be dangerous, we do require that cars and their users be registered, insured and that users be tested before using them. But we don't do that for guns. We require little other than a background check, which is far short from registration. No testing is required.

Knives are used to kill people. Will you want to outlaw knives next?
No of course not. Knives are a tool. They help us cut or slice things we can't or don't want to with our hands. To stab or slash someone is to misuse that tool. A gun is designed to shoot. To shoot at people is immoral, but it is not misusing the tool.

Additionally, a knife can't kill multiple people from a distance. A Tec-9 gun can.

Mr. Mauser is so deep in grief that he can't think rationally.

This is something you'll hear them say about me or about any other victim who calls for gun control. They find it impossible to take on our facts and our reasonableness, so they try to simply dismiss or condemn us. Paul Thomsen, of Fort Collins, Colo., said in a letter to the editor, that "he is so overwhelmed with justifiable grief that he is incapable of rational thought or action."

I can assure Mr. Thomsen that I capable of grieving and thinking at the same time! We can't be so easily dismissed. In fact, I would contend that when you've been through a tragedy, sometimes some things become more self evident to you, despite your grief. Grief can make some things come more into focus.

(Mr. Thomsen's patronizing attempt to dismiss me was a poor one. He went on suggest that tragedies like Columbine could be prevented if we just let teachers carry concealed weapons. Oh, sure, the answer to increasing gun violence is to have more guns! By presenting such a ludicrous argument, he helped me more than his own cause, for most people are clearly concerned about the the prospect of having teachers carry guns. We need to demonstrate to ordinary Americans these ridiculous. extremist views of the gun lobby.)

Guns don't kill people, people kill people!
No, people with easily-accessible guns kill people.

Rather than pass more regulations, enforce the hundreds of laws already on the books!
We have a better idea: How about both? Let's do a better job of enforcement AND add laws that close loopholes. After all, the hundreds of laws have not stopped us from having 200 million firearms and over 15,000 gun homicides per year. Plus, we suspect that the NRA's enforcement complaint is just a smoke screen; if the federal government really did make a very strong effort to better enforce ALL existing gun regulations, the NRA would probably then scream bloody murder (oops, poor choice of words)!








http://www.danielmauser.com/cliches.html

? ? The term "Militia" did not have the meaning back in 1787 that you and many of the proponents of your view give it.? The Virginia Bill of Rights, where the phrase was taken from, defined Militia as: "the body of the people, trained to arms."? Madison also took this interpretation in Federalist 46, in saying that it provide a readily defense of liberty against the standing army that the Constitution proposed.? Also, it is an odd place to find a provision about a guarantee for a militia in a list of individual rights.

Yea...and?

How is this breaking down my post?

That definition for militia goes all the way back to the 1500s in England, well before being used here.

? However, the meaning that liberals attach to the 2nd Amendment is completely wrong.?

Why are you making this a liberal thing? I know many people (left and right) who understand the ammendment for what it is: something written in a time period much different than today. Only a portion is used "right to bear arms" to advocate gun "rights" in this country. It is misleading and a non-honest approach.

Instead of changing the meaning of the amendment (which is the usual approach to liberal change of the Constitution), they should try and change it by amendment.? Do it democratically instead of trying to argue that the Second Amendment doesnt mean what it actually says.?

You are creating a strawman argument and trying to tear it down.

Strawman: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument

Because in your post, and your post in the other thread, you claim that those that are pro-gun rights misread the amendment by only reading part of it.  Im saying that such a reading is misguided.


Probably does.  But that is besides the point.  You interpret a document based on what it textually means and what the intentions were.  In fact, the definition I quoted is from the Virginia Bill of Rights, which was the main model for the US Bill of Rights. 

?
Because this tends to be an issue that is pretty split down the middle between conservatives and liberals.  Most people that make the faulty interpretation of the 2nd amendment, as you did, are on the left.  But that is besides the point, you would be wrong even if you were a conservative.  I guess not all liberals are for gun control?  Over generalization.  Sorry.


Fair enough.  This is exactly the argument I made in m last post.  I think policy wise, a unfettered right to bear arms might not be the ideal thing.  However, change the law and the amendment through democratic means, instead of rewriting the second amendment and giving it a meaning that it doesnt have. 

The reason I mentioned liberal judges is because they tend to be the ones that do this most often.  Although, a fair share of conservative judges are also activist.

My argument is that it doesnt matter if you read half of it or the whole thing.  It means the same thing.  It is just as dishonest to change the definition of militia to today's meaning (but you dont have a problem with that), and then claim that it was never the intent for there to be an individual right to bear arms.  In fact, it is more misleading because, as I explained, the former approach doesnt contrast with the actual original meaning of the amendment. 

Perhaps you dont understand the argument then.  I hope I explained it better.  In summary, your reading of the amendment is wrong.  Furthermore, those gun rights advocates who only read half of the amendment are more honest then those that are completely changing the meaning of the amendment.

I must be the exception to my fellow "fear based, gun nut" Americans.  I've never felt the need or desire to have own a gun.

That said, I've also never felt the need to deprive law-abiding U.S. citizens the right to own guns either.

Fact is, you can regulate guns until hell freezes over, but criminals will always find ways to get them and use them.

In summary, your reading of the amendment is wrong. 

You are reading it wrong and have proved nothing. Anybody with a brain can see what it means.

Furthermore, those gun rights advocates who only read half of the amendment are more honest then those that are completely changing the meaning of the amendment.

More honest? By quoting only half something to make their point? I guess your definition of the word honest differs from mine as well.

You condradict yourself.

Saying "criminals will always find ways to get them" is fear based.

The big bad wolf is coming to get you and you need to protect yourself.

Bullshit.

Strict gun laws locking up those found with guns will eliminate the problem.

Caught with a gun? 10 yrs mandatory in jail. Done, end of story.

Two week amnesty period to turn guns in with no questions asked. After that, the law applies.

Apply a zero tolerance for guns.

Plus, again, you are ignoring the realty of gun ownership in this country. That people are more likely to be harmed with their own gun than a strangers vs used to actually protect themselves.

Bottom line is that we are a violent, fear based, society, run by MONEY, money that is funneled from the NRA to our jerks in washington who no longer care about our safety, but rather campaign funds.

I knew you wouldnt refute anything I wrote. ?Classic post of yours.


Actually, I proved that both textually and structurally, there is no way it can have the meaning that you give it. ?There are more arguments to this if you want me to spell them out? ?Since you dont challenge the ones that prove the point, I doubt you even want to hear them. ?You come up with nothing other than the word "militia," which I have told you meant something different at the time the Constitution was ratified. ?

Now I dont know whether you really believe I am wrong, or if you are just stubborn as usual and dont want concede something to me. ?However, if I am wrong tell me how I am wrong instead of just saying I am reading it wrong. ?Refute what I am saying! ?I refuted your reading of it, now refute mine.

Some how I doubt you will.

They may be only quoting half of something, but as I stated, their quote is the meaning of the amendment. ?They quote it to mean an individual right. ?Since we dont use the term militia how it was used back then, I doubt people are going to go around quoting it as the meaning of the amendment. ?Especially since people like you take it out of context. ?Certainly it is not right to only quote half of it, but answer me this:

Who is more honest? Those that quote half, but whose interpretation of it is the same of what it actually means? ?Or those that dont that try and change the meaning of the amendment by changing the meaning of the terms in the amendment? ?On the one hand, it retains the same meaning. ?On the other hand, it gives it a whole new meaning. ?Now which one better serves an agenda?

Actually, most Constitutional scholars believe that the 2nd amendment was meant to be an individual right.

Link please?

"Most scholars" is logical fallacy and not accepted from me.

The term "Militia" did not have the meaning back in 1787 that you and many of the proponents of your view give it.  The Virginia Bill of Rights, where the phrase was taken from, defined Militia as: "the body of the people, trained to arms."

This is what I wrote.

The meaning dates back to England around 1500 or so. It never has changed "meanings" as you claim.

 Instead of changing the meaning of the amendment (which is the usual approach to liberal change of the Constitution), they should try and change it by amendment.  Do it democratically instead of trying to argue that the Second Amendment doesnt mean what it actually says.  This is the problem with the judges on the far left, the create rights that they believe should exist in the Constitution, and they take out those that they dont believe should exist.  It is a rewriting of the Constitution.  Liberals make it sound like the Judiciary only promotes liberty and individual rights, however, they always ignore the rights that have been diminished and written out of the Constitution.

On to strawman argument.


You have not broken down or proved anything wrong.

Sorry.

I think guns give people a false sense of security, I would never own a gun, I even sleep with my doors unlocked cause I dont fear anything.

Just cause u own a gun doesnt mean u wont get murdered or robbed either.


People love power and guns give people a sense of power, an illusion of invincibility.


I dont like the anti American sentiments, I love my country and with all due respect to others I wouldnt wanna live anywhere else, so if people are gun carrying maniacs, I just consider that a fair trade off for being able to do what i can do.

People who criticize my country need to take a look around their country and realize that everyone has problems and things wrong within.

I can cite you tons of people that interpret it the way I have. ?I have talked extensively about this subject with Constitutional Law professors have told me such. ?Each one I have talked to laugh about the argument you claim and say that not even the liberal professors claim that. ?Can you find me one legal scholar who actually believes the interpretation you give it? ?

Nope it doesnt. ?How can you change the meaning of a term that someone else wrote and still say it means what that person wrote? ?How do we know what anything anyone writes means? ?How do I know that when you first wrote "militia" that you were rereffing to something analogous with "state like" armies? ?I know this because I know you live in the 21st century and that you are an american that speaks English. ?If I dont look at the context in which something is written and dont give it the meaning they assigned it then I am not interpreting what they are saying. ?What judges do that basically give words changed meanings is rewrite the Constitution. ?The Constitution only has any legitimacy because it was a document that was ratified popularly by the people. ?What was ratified was the meaning of the document at the time it was ratified. ?If you or anyone doesnt like that meaning then you can change it by the process provided in the Constitution. ?However, there has been a movement to try and fuck the majority and instead push agendas through judges that give certain terms changed meanings depending on what fits their agenda. ?That is not figuring out what the Constitution meant when it is ratified, it is giving it a meaning.

So to answer you question, No. ?I dont think that the meaning of Militia that was put in out Constitution changed.

 Yes I have. ?Re-read the posts. ?However, you have failed to answer my replies with any meaningful response.

That criminals will always find a way to obtain and use guns isn't fear based.? It's cold, hard reality.? If anything, you're fooling yourself.


I never said or alluded to this, so don't put put words in my mouth.? I don't pretend to know all the reasons law-abiding citizens desire to have weapons.? And frankly I don't care.? As long as they are law abiding, they don't need a reason.? At least one that would satisfy you anyway.?



Ha!? Now this is bullshit.? While I'm all for tough laws and zero tolerance, I'm aware that they don't "prevent" anything.? Have tough laws and zero tolerance stopped the drug problem or drunk driving?? No.? The same would apply to guns.


I suppose that's a risk those who want to legally own guns are willing to take.? Like I said, I've never been on of them.


I agree that our society, like most, is violent and has a lot of reason to fear.? But I'm not about to lay all the blame for gun violence at the feet of the NRA or anyone else in particular.? Once again, if anything, the NRA is just your own "big bad wolf."

You're totally right.

I think gun laws should be changed to improve on safety. Illegalizing guns won't help, because like Nut-job said, criminals always find away. Someone mentioned prison sentencing for owners of guns as a method, but I think that's a bit extreme. However, it would be beneficial for everyone if guns were harder to obtain.

I can cite you tons of people that interpret it the way I have.? I have talked extensively about this subject with Constitutional Law professors have told me such.? Each one I have talked to laugh about the argument you claim and say that not even the liberal professors claim that.? Can you find me one legal scholar who actually believes the interpretation you give it??

Another logical fallacy.

"I know somebody who said this to be true" does not make you correct.

There are plenty of people who believe what I said. How foolish of you to think otherwise. You have spoken extensively with your law professors since this thread opened yesterday? Whoah buddy....that's pretty extensive. I mean being the weekend and everything...

In fact what I have said is a common argument. One last time: This was written in a different era, and meant for the citizens to arm themselves and aid the army, defend their land blah blah blah. It is totally outdated and does not apply to the life we live today. It was not written so that we can own 38 pistols on our nightstands and glocks in our gloveboxes. That is not what it was written for. I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with this.


Nope it doesnt.? How can you change the meaning of a term that someone else wrote and still say it means what that person wrote?

What?

Who changed the meaning of anything?


? How do we know what anything anyone writes means?? How do I know that when you first wrote "militia" that you were rereffing to something analogous with "state like" armies?? I know this because I know you live in the 21st century and that you are an american that speaks English.

 If I dont look at the context in which something is written and dont give it the meaning they assigned it then I am not interpreting what they are saying.? What judges do that basically give words changed meanings is rewrite the Constitution.? The Constitution only has any legitimacy because it was a document that was ratified popularly by the people.? What was ratified was the meaning of the document at the time it was ratified.? If you or anyone doesnt like that meaning then you can change it by the process provided in the Constitution.? However, there has been a movement to try and fuck the majority and instead push agendas through judges that give certain terms changed meanings depending on what fits their agenda.? That is not figuring out what the Constitution meant when it is ratified, it is giving it a meaning.

More strawman bullshit.

This is hogwash and has nothing to do with why America loves it's guns. It's off topic. You are trying to build up an evil liberal machine that hates America and then tear it down.

Total bullshit. And based on how you usually write, I have to wonder if you even wrote that.


Yes I have.? Re-read the posts.? However, you have failed to answer my replies with anmeaningful response.

Your posts are strawman arguments and make no sense to me, sorry.

My opinion is straight forward and is easily understood. I'd say many people believe the same thing.

It is extreme, but what are the punishments in other countries with low or rare murders???

Imagine a law being passed outlawing guns. Everybody had to turn their guns in. They had two weeks to do so. Legal or illegal guns would be turned in.

After that, a stiff penalty for gun posession. It would fill up jails yes. But in the long run it would cut down on crime, murder, accidents, and the jails would be less full in the long run because of this.

Anybody who jumps up and down and says "no way this will work" is not taking into account other countries with strict laws that won't tolerate bullshit.

It's just a lose thought anyway. Really at this point, with this many guns out there , this much money involved, it would never happen. But the thought of having zero guns out there sure is nice to think about.

The overwhelming prevalence of firearms in America - and specifically handguns - has created a dangerous situation in which our society has paid the ultimate price.  As you read this, there are approximately 192 million firearms in the United States, including roughly 65 million handguns.1 

Handgun violence in America has become a problem of epidemic proportions that absolutely must be cured.  Since 1962, more than one million Americans have been killed by firearms in homicides, suicides and unintentional suicides.2  More than 65% of these were committed using handguns.3  Every single day in America, there are approximately 89 people who are killed from firearms - a whopping one every 16 minutes.4  In addition to those who are killed with firearms, every year there are approximately 115,000 firearm-related injuries in the United States - one every 4 1/2 minutes.5  According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, "It is estimated that 20,000 people per year are left paralyzed by a bullet from a handgun; the approximate number of people paralyzed and the lifetime medical costs are analogous to those of the polio epidemic of the 1950s."6

The easy access to firearms in the United States inevitably leads to a dangerous situation in which hundreds of thousands of people's lives are drastically affected.  Criminals, terrorists and others routinely purchase firearms illegally at gun shows, through the mail, over the internet and through newspaper ads.

Firearms that are legally purchased continue to end up in the hands of criminals on too many occasions.  Every year, there are anywhere between 350,000 and 590,000 cases of stolen firearms.7  These firearms are then used in the course of additional crimes.  According to one recent survey, 32% of all incarcerated felons who had used a handgun in the course of a crime had obtained that handgun by stealing it.8 

The financial burden of firearm injuries and deaths to the American taxpayer are unbelievable.  Costing roughly $938,500 per gunshot injury,9 the medical expenses alone for gunshot injuries tops $4 billion per year.10  In addition to this, the American taxpayer ends up footing most of the bill for these gunshots - at least 80% of the total cost is picked up by taxpayers.11 

Sources:

1. Cook, P. and Ludwig, J.  Guns in America.  Police Foundation.  1996.
2. Fatal Firearms Injuries in the United States, 1962-1994.  Violence Surveillance Summary Series.  No. 3.  1997.
3. Deaths: Final Data for 1996, 1997.  National Vital Statistics Report.
4. Hoyert, DL, Kochanek, KD, et al.  Deaths: Final Data for 1997.  National Vital Statistics Report.  1999.
5. Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries - United States, 1993-1998."  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  CDC Surveillance Summaries.  Vol. 50, No. SS-2.  April 13, 2001.
6. American Academy of Pediatrics.  "Firearm-Related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population."  Pediatrics.  Vol. 105, No. 4.  April 2000.  PP. 888-895.  www.aap.org/policy/re9926.html.
7. Cook, Molliconi and Cole.  "Regulating Gun Markets."  The Journal of Marketing Research.  Vol. 86, No. 1.  1995.  PP. 59-92.
8. Cook, and Ludwig.  "Guns in America, Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use, Summary Report."  Washington, DC.  Police Foundation.  1996.  P. 15.
9. Miller, TR, Cohen, MA.  "Costs of Gunshot and Cut/Stab Wounds in the United States."  Accident Analysis and Prevention.  1997.  Vol. 29, No. 3.  PP. 329-341.
10. Kizer, KW, Vassar, MJ, et al.  "Hospitalization Charges, Costs, and Income for Firearm-Related Injuries at a University Trauma Center."  Journal of the American Medical Association.  Vol. 273, No. 22.  1995.  PP. 1768-1773.
11. Wintemute, GJ, and Wright, MA.  "Initial and Subsequent Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries."  Journal of Trauma.  1992.  Vol. 33.  PP. 556-560.
   
 

I think in order to have certain freedoms u have to deal with other freedoms that arent necessarily good.

1st amendent for example, we have the right to free speech but a whole lot of profane,evil horrible things go with it.

If u take away guns, peoplewill just find something else to kill each other with, so do u ban knives and other potentially lethal objects as well?

They need to find a way to crack down on illegal gun sales.

people who register their guns and buy them legally and use for protection, those people to me arent the problem, its the criminals who obtain them by illegal means.

they should however pass a law that if u own a gun and your child kills himself or someone else with it, that the owner be charged with first degree murder.

I guarantee that would make people use more caution with their firearms.

I personally think its ridiculous to own a gun, I mean u are protecting yourself from people trying to protect themselves.

sad part is, owning a gun could actually get u killed when otherwise u may not have got killed.

if someone breaks in, they may just want to rob u and leave, if u pull a gun and miss and they shoot u, they could actually get away with self defense.


people are also pussies today and scared to pack an ass whipping

I know that I try my best to let things go cause Im truly afraid of fighting and whipping someone's ass. Im afraid that theywill shoot me now.

couple years ago this goofy bastard kept trying to get me to fight him.

I know this guy carries a gun and I know and He knows that I would absolutely break him in half

so the fact he acted so brave had me cautious and even though I hated that motherfucker with a passion, I let it go cause I just knew the reason he was being brave was cause he had a gun.

Had i beat his ass, Id be dead right now. so im very very cautious.

I understand what you're saying, and I wish it could be that way, but this isn't a perfect society. Look at the war on drugs. Although drugs are illegal in the States, there's more drugs than ever. People are overdosing everyday. The prisons are packed more than ever before.

To me, it is extreme to sentence someone to prison for owning a gun. There's an Australian lady who is facing a life sentence or possibly death in Indonesia, because they found pot in her suitcase. I don't want America to turn into that kind of extreme society. Not everyone who owns a gun is going to kill someone with it. It's the criminal element that needs to be scrutinized.

you accuse anyone with a different opinion from yours of having opinions based on fear. but you post this shit that starts out with a phrase that is meant to put fear in you mind.  ::)

the assault weapon ban was one of the biggest pieces of political propaganda of the last 20 years. and if you took a second to learn about it and not just repeat what you hear our liberal media report about it, you would know it was a joke.

for example, the ban focused much on the STYLE of automatic weapons, like ones with bayonets on them and other "military" style weapons.

so gun manufacturers just changed the style of the guns to make them fall under the "sport"category. so you could still get the same guns, they just looked different.

and despite what the dems and our liberal media tell you, fully automatic AK-47s are still illegal without the ban.   

Exactly the response I expected from you.  Let me try one more time.

Its not a logical fallacy.  I have talked to many prominent people in the field that discuss and write on this stuff on a daily basis.  They pretty much tell me that not very many law professors, on the left or the right, read the amendment to have an original meaning as you claim.  Of course, there are those that believe that the meaning of the Constitution changes overtime.  But that is not what we were arguing in the first place.  Our argument was over the original meaning. 

But answer me this: If you are are going to argue that the amendment was written at a different time for a different time, why not just be honest and throw the amendment out and acknolwldge that you want to throw out one of the Bill of Rights?  Instead you try and change the meaning of a term in the amendment to essentially do the same thing?  Very deceitful if you ask me.


Of course you cant name any reputable law professors that have such a view point.  I wish you would because I would love to read their work.  Here are a couple of law review articles that support my position:
Willam Van Alstyne, The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms, 43 Duke L.J. 1236 (1994)
43 Ariz. L. Rev. 439
45 Emory L.J. 1139= Randy Barnett

You make up shit out of thin air.  I said I have spoken extensively with Constitutional Law professors on the subject.  I didnt say since the thread opened.  Believe it or not, but you are not important enough for me to go do research on a subject to counter your arguments. 

I dont know if this is your way of conceding my point?  But I argued about what the original meaning meant.  You are arguing that the second amendment is no longer needed.  I dont necessarily disagree with you on this point.  However, I disagree with you, and the left for that matter, in how they go about getting rid of the second amendment.  They change the meaning of the term through judicial interpretation.  I refer you to my first point, at least be honest about what you are doing.  Either admit that it is no longer needed and write it out of the Constiution, but dont interpet it to say what it doesnt.  Of course, you could try and popularly change the amendment, but that is too tough to do.  Your kind would rather impose on the people through the judiciary what you think is right for america, instead of letting america decide for itself.

You asked if I think the meaning changes.  I said no.  I basically told you what the original meaning was.  Your response was that it was written a long time ago, and that it no longer applies to today.  You then asked me if the meaning changes.  So basically you conceded that you changed the meaning of it.

Of course, I refer you to my point last time.  Once you start to change amendments through interpretations and decide that certain ones apply today and others dont, you essentially get rid of our Constiution and you let the fate of America be decided by 5 justices.  Be prepared, for as you like justices writing the second amendment out of the Constitution, you may not like them writing other amendments out of the Constitution.  Certainly we live in a much tougher time where there are greater terrorist threats (that can do a lot of damage) than there were during the founding era.  Should we change our search and seizure provisions?  Should we change our 5th amendment right to self-incrimination provisions to meet these new needs? 

Then you dont understand the argument.  It is at the center of the whole point I am trying to make.  Once you try to impose erroneous readings of the Constitution on the people, you are essentially allowing 5 justices to change everything.  This is how you view the second amendment.  The argument logically goes much further than that.  There are many out there that cant change things democratically so they go to the courts and basically have the judges overturn democratically passed legislation or amendments.

I guess that is a compliment and a backhand in the same sentence.  Well, thanks for the former.  I am not trying to impress anyone with my writing ability on this board. :hihi:
Anyway, it is not total bullshit.  It is the reality of the situation, and it is exactly why I get so worked up about this stuff.  People dont understand the logical implications of the argument that you are making.  It is done all the time.  Just remember, the first time the Supreme Court read the Constitution as it wished, we got Dred Scott and a Civil War.

I know many people believe the same thing.  However, it is flawed and that is what I am trying to project in my arguments.  While there are many people that believe the Constitution changes in meaning, there are few that actually believe the original meaning of the amendment is not an individual right to bear arms.  I put forward the evidence, yet you fail to challenge any of my assertions.  That is because you cant.  Instead, you say that the meaning of the amendment changes.  Well fine, I know many have that misguided point of view, but it is not what we were originally discussing.  Perhaps that is just your way of conceding the former point.

You can label my arguments what ever terms you want to.  However, your lack in ability to refute them, of course along with the name calling, shows the merit of my arguments.

Nut job

"Ha!  Now this is bullshit.  While I'm all for tough laws and zero tolerance, I'm aware that they don't "prevent" anything.  Have tough laws and zero tolerance stopped the drug problem or drunk driving?  No.  The same would apply to guns."



Ok simple logic.

A country like Australia have relativley tough gun laws compared to the US.

We have just as much (or close)  crime and just as many criminals as the USA per capita....so why is it that we have a MASSIVELY lower homicide rate via the way of GUNS per capita in comparison??????????

I can give you figures if you need...but then deep down you know Im telling the truth, and deep down you know why also.....dont you??

again, you cannot compare two totally different cultures with different histories. the gun culture in the US is well rooted in our history. you cannot all of sudden just implement guns laws and expect them to work.

drugs are illegal here....you think that's working?  ::)

Honestly, I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here.

I don't deny for a second that, in many respects, the U.S. is the most violent nation in the world.

But, as I said before, the reasons for that are much more complex than how many guns there are floating around and what our laws are.

Good that she is.

When in Rome, act as a roman. Who does this woman think she is, going to another country along with a substance that their laws deem forbidden.

Let me tell you, Indonesia has tough laws sure, but check out their crime rates concerning all crimes; very damn low. Because over there, it is a think of the society as a whole #1, and think of oneself after #2. But the thing is, when everyone thinks of their society as a whole first, it actually betters life for the individual. Quality of life there is very good.

In the states, it's me, me, me, end of story.

She said she didn't know the customs regarding drugs.


If that were your sister would you feel the same way? Try looking at it like that. If you relate to someone it's harder to separate yourself from them.?

Third-World countries practice extreme methods. Hanging someone for using drugs is unholy. I don't want that poor lady to be executed over something like that. I understand wanting your country to be safe and moral, but it seems to me that certain officials try to play God, by taking lives and placing fear into the heart of the people.

The States may be very flawed, but at least we live as we want instead of how we're told. And as far as it being about me, me, me, life is about us (meaning everyone in the world). We're here to make our own decisions and find out what life is. We're not supposed to be ruthless dictators toward each other, but leaders, and there is a difference. Compassion must overrule pride. 

I guess since SLC cant  back his arguments on this thread with arguments about Bush's failings in Iraq he chose not respond.

The most Stupid thing human beings ever created, besides human beings  :hihi:, are weapons, is the most ilogical, lack of intelligence kind of invent, I mean As I read before that is too ovbius to have a gun to kill a Deer, for Fuck sakes! Why you need to kill a deer??, People kill bulls with Spades and People call it sports! Fuck the toreros!, I dont agree with that, Whats this has to do with the topic??, well if we dont respect ourselfs as human beings, of course we dont respect other living creatures, at the end the world is a mass of confussion  >:(, and people doesnt Hate USA people hate the world and that's for sure!! Fucking lunatics!!  :rant:

Sorry, I couldnt follow any of that.? Maybe a little more use of the period, and a little less use of the comma.

Weapons only made evil people more efficient.

Its in the makeup of human beings to be evil, look at Cain and Able.

Even if guns were never invented, people would still be chaotic and you will still have tons of attrocities.

Yeah I agree, but shouldn't commas use to seprate sentences, also when you try to make an stament that is not supposed to be in the same topic as the original idea? I tried to make a correction look if thats understandable.  :peace:

I got no place, no name, I'm just a killing machine
I kept the population down, if you know what I mean

;)