Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/25/2001 9:39:07 PM EDT
No rights are absolute. We have many restrictions on the 1st Amendment (speech/expression clause) that apply to ALL citizens: (Libel, slander, conspiracy, perjury, fraud, giving false info to LEO, contract law, inciting riots, etc.) What are the reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment that you believe should be applied to ALL citizens?
Link Posted: 12/25/2001 9:45:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/25/2001 9:49:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/25/2001 9:51:08 PM EDT
I guess it being illegal to brandish a firearm is a good law.
Link Posted: 12/25/2001 9:55:35 PM EDT
BZZZZZZ....wrong answer, thanks for playing. ALL the rights enumerated in the BOR are ABSOLUTE. These rights have been granted by Creator, and last I checked, Creator has not revoked them for ANYONE on this planet. As for the restrictions on freedom of speech, refer to the second sentence in this post. All you wusses need to get over yourself. If someone says something you don't like, so F'ing what, get over yourself.
Link Posted: 12/25/2001 9:56:01 PM EDT
You should be able to do/own/use ANYTHING you want as long as you are not physically harming anyone in doing so. I also believe that if someone wants to place limitations upon rights, they may do so all they want, only as long as the restrictions only apply to themselves.
Link Posted: 12/25/2001 9:57:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/25/2001 9:59:29 PM EDT
SamuraiTy... why should it be against the law to brandish your weapon? If i cna keep it and can carry it why should iI not be allowed to brandish it in a situation that it may be required to protect some one or something that is near and dear to me??
Link Posted: 12/25/2001 10:49:00 PM EDT
There is a perception amongst the non-gun owning public that gun owners oppose background screens because we aren't concerned about violent felons getting their hands on a gun. Whether background checks do, in fact, inhibit this possibility isn't the point. It's the perception that matters. Don't expect the populace to be quelled into admitting anything. A herd has its own momentum, and tends to keep to its chosen path. I think that gun shows will not be without some form of screening process much longer. I can only guess what the future will actually hold. Assuming that the S.C. does rule that gun ownership is an individual right, then, it seems background checks will be deemed a legitimate "nuisance" that firearms owners must endure. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. The S.C. rules on individual applicability of the B.O.R.'s only on a case-by-case basis, and so it is not assumed that they necessarily apply to the individual unless specific case rulings demonstrate this. The 1st, 4th, & 5th have been ruled to be individual rights in this regard, but the the 2nd Amendment's specific applicability has yet to be determined. 'Emerson' appears to address this fundamental question regarding the 2nd. We'll have to see if the S.C. feels so inclined to entertain its argument. Stay tuned. And hold your breath.
Link Posted: 12/25/2001 11:22:51 PM EDT
I guess I was trying to be brief. I probably need to look up brandish in a dictionary but what I mean is carrying it irresponsibly in public, you know, like walking down the street (maybe to the gun show) w/ it sholdered or pointing it at ppl and stuff as opposed to carrying it slung on your back or over you sholder w/ the barrel cracked. I mean carying it in such a manner that sugests that you have other than peacefull intentions. What I don't mean is using it, drawing it, presenting it or tactfully letting it be seen in a situation the threatents you'r life or the life of an inocent so as to deter the agressor. I you see a guy walking down the street pointing his weapon at people, by all means, brandish and fire away.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 1:09:29 AM EDT
Funny you should mention this... I am currently writing what I believe is a ground-breaking piece for the William & Mary Law Review...applying Free Speech/Press jurisprudence to the Second Amendment to try to answer this very question. Two of the major issues are "prior restraints" and "time, place, manner" restrictions. Pretty much any law that prohibits peaceable ownership and carry of a firearm is a prior restraint. If one applies other First Amendment standards, the results aren't all good for us...but it's still an interesting approach, I think.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 1:29:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 2:09:18 AM EDT
Well, I say the RKBA is an absolute right, and I have my guns to back me up. Isn't that part of what the Founding Fathers intended the 2nd amendment to guarantee?
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 4:01:33 AM EDT
I'd go for a 'no weapons of mass destruction' proviso written into the BOR. Just in case the guy next door has an accidental discharge, we don't want to vaporize, now do we? Eric The(Neighborly)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 4:12:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: What are the reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment that you believe should be applied to ALL citizens?
View Quote
No using a gun to murder, rape, rob or commit any "inherently" criminal activity. But mere possession of a firearm should NOT be an illegality. Its not criminal to own a gun - its criminal to use the gun in a criminal fashion.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 4:14:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2001 4:14:55 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By dbrowne1: Funny you should mention this... I am currently writing what I believe is a ground-breaking piece for the William & Mary Law Review...applying Free Speech/Press jurisprudence to the Second Amendment to try to answer this very question. .
View Quote
dbrowne1 - get a copy of "That Every Man Be Armed" by Stephen Halbrook. I think its got ALOT of source material for you.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 4:38:01 AM EDT
Samuraity, why should carrying a firearm in public be against the law? It shouldit be against the law to carry a weapon if you have no criminal intent?? It Shouldn't. Here in NC, we are allowed by law t oopen carry, but if some weak bladdered individual gets scared, then I can be given a ticket, or arrested for "carrying to the terror"?? Is that right? No!! Your (not meaning you)unreasonable fear is NOT grounds for infringing on my rights. [smoke]
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 5:04:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: I'd go for a 'no weapons of mass destruction' proviso written into the BOR. Just in case the guy next door has an accidental discharge, we don't want to vaporize, now do we? Eric The(Neighborly)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
If someone wants to own a nuclear warhead, fine, “just watch where you’re pointing that thing.” Thing is there isn’t any fun with nuclear weapons, ammo is extremely expensive and you can only fire it once.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 5:18:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2001 5:19:34 AM EDT by BenDover]
I had a fission device for a while before dismantling it. It was a high school project that went really wrong. We did get a A for the effort but the school administration was really concerned about the safety of the lower half of the state so we were not permitted to enter it into the science fair. Amazing how much radioactive material you can get out of smoke detectors. Amazing how much hubub you can elicit from people over little things like that. [:D] EDITED TO ADD: Actually there was very little radioactive material involved. We just had enough to make the science lab's geiger counter jump off the scale when it was passed over the device for effect. I wish I had a picture of all their faces when I passed that wand over the core!!! hee hee
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 2:33:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: No rights are absolute. We have many restrictions on the 1st Amendment (speech/expression clause) that apply to ALL citizens: (Libel, slander, conspiracy, perjury, fraud, giving false info to LEO, contract law, inciting riots, etc.) What are the reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment that you believe should be applied to ALL citizens?
View Quote
conspiracy, perjury, fraud, disinformation. these are crimes because the violate someone elses rights. conspiracy could be about murder, or theft, perjuyand disinformation could be used to protect a guilty party member from be caught a prosecuted by lawenfrocment. fraud deprieves someone from their money through false advertisement and deceit. slander without representation could be a vengful tactic to keep someone from keeping their job. inciting riot is inciting violence to destroy private/public property. these are crimes just as someone using a firearm to threaten anothers life. i do not see them as infringments on the first amendment. Hate speech=Hate crime is in my opinion a violation of the first amendment since nobody has a right to be liked. it only becomes a crime if the violate their rights. such as bodily injury, slander, and conspiracy. libel lib [:D][:D]
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 2:37:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: I'd go for a 'no weapons of mass destruction' proviso written into the BOR. Just in case the guy next door has an accidental discharge, we don't want to vaporize, now do we? Eric The(Neighborly)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
i agree. Nuclear/chemical/biological weapons are useless as freedom fighting weapon and would cause to much collateral damage. including your own homes. not to mention how would one store such munitions. nuclear age lib
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 3:07:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SDavid:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: I'd go for a 'no weapons of mass destruction' proviso written into the BOR. Just in case the guy next door has an accidental discharge, we don't want to vaporize, now do we? Eric The(Neighborly)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
If someone wants to own a nuclear warhead, fine, “just watch where you’re pointing that thing.” Thing is there isn’t any fun with nuclear weapons, ammo is extremely expensive and you can only fire it once.
View Quote
To SDavid: I know you are joking and Eric The(respected)Hun knows you are joking, but newbees won't know you are joking. Moderators are gods, oops, I mean mods, that are not to be f**ked with, I think.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 5:32:02 PM EDT
Too much "interpretation." Just read it in plain English. The Constitution means what it says. No more, no less, and certainly nothing different. I don't see any modifiers in "Congress shall pass no law ..." or "... shall not be infringed."
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 5:47:19 PM EDT
[size=3][i]A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/i][/size=3] ... meaning to me, as an American, I shall maintain working firearms to defend the United States Constitution that defends my right to keep those firearms.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 5:53:50 PM EDT
there should be no restrictions on the second amendment. a weapon of mass destruction is not a firearm. unreasonable fear is no excuse for violating someones rights. the government is bound to uphold the constitution,not their interpretation of it. then governor voinavich was asked by the majority of ohio voters to sign a concealed carry law. he refused siding with a special interest group. this is a violation of our right to keep and bear arms,and an abuse of power.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 8:12:32 PM EDT
WRONG. Criminals do not get guns. Period. Convicted felons do not get to carry or own guns. That way if they are seen with a gun, we can shoot them.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 8:46:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Libertoon: ...conspiracy, perjury, fraud, disinformation. these are crimes because the violate someone elses rights. conspiracy could be about murder, or theft...
View Quote
How does conspiracy violate someone else's rights? Simply discussing plans to commit a crime does not actually damage property or injury anyone. Simply talking seriously about robbing an armored is a crime? What about prior restraint?
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 8:47:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: I'd go for a 'no weapons of mass destruction' proviso written into the BOR. Just in case the guy next door has an accidental discharge, we don't want to vaporize, now do we? Eric The(Neighborly)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
I would agree with Eric provided the definition of what constitutes a weapon of mass destruction is clearly defined. I don't want to give the politicians or judges any wiggle room to interpret my rights as they see fit. I also believe if a citizen is free to mingle with polite society, their right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. If they can't be trusted, they should be behind bars or feeding the worms. If their debt to society has been paid, then they should be able to obtain the means of self defense.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 8:47:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By wwwtimmcp: there should be no restrictions on the second amendment. a weapon of mass destruction is not a firearm. unreasonable fear is no excuse for violating someones rights. the government is bound to uphold the constitution,not their interpretation of it. then governor voinavich was asked by the majority of ohio voters to sign a concealed carry law. he refused siding with a special interest group. this is a violation of our right to keep and bear arms,and an abuse of power.
View Quote
Well, while I agree, that it would be a bit silly to guarantee that we all could own weapons of mass destruction (expense and storage problems aside), the second amendment is not about firearms [b]only[/b]. It simply states that we have a right to keep and bear [i]arms[/i]. Interpreted literally, I would guess that should I desire to own a full size working replica of the Kitty Hawk, fully armed and commissioned, I should be able to do so (of course, it's outside of my capabilities, income-wise), so nukes, biologicals, and chemicals should be allowed as well... but! Do we want to go that far? would they help secure a free state? My take would be any weapon you can afford, you should be able to own... and let the WMDs simply be way to expensive to own...or regulate only those somehow - as EtH said, yuo'd hate for your neighbor to have an accidental discharge...
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 8:51:26 PM EDT
Don't even bring up Nuclear Weapons! The Bill of Rights is about individual rights and the Second Amendment concerns small arms which are personal defense weapons and arms for the Militia. Cannons, and artillery type crew-served weapons, mortars, land mines, as well as bombs from naval and air platforms are not small arms and are not part of the Second Amendment, they are weapons intended to be part of a military force in declared wars and under the control of our Armed Forces and Congress. We have set a limit already on small arms to exclude fully automatic machine guns. One could argue that these fall under the definition of crew-served weapons, but no matter, we won't see full auto ever allowed to citizens, except in rare instances and severe restrictions. Besides, this class of weapons is not the point of RKBA, all other civilian and military type semi-autos and other small arms operating actions are! People who should be restricted are felons and people under court order with regard to cases involving threats of violence or destruction of property. Substance abusers and people insane or restricted because of a medical condition or disability creating unsafe conditions. Only citizens of the United States who have not renounced citizenship may be entitled to these rights. Illegal Aliens, and non-resident foreigners are excluded.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 9:13:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 9:17:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By punkatomic: Don't even bring up Nuclear Weapons! The Bill of Rights is about individual rights and the Second Amendment concerns small arms which are personal defense weapons and arms for the Militia. Cannons, and artillery type crew-served weapons, mortars, land mines, as well as bombs from naval and air platforms are not small arms and are not part of the Second Amendment, they are weapons intended to be part of a military force in declared wars and under the control of our Armed Forces and Congress. We have set a limit already on small arms to exclude fully automatic machine guns. One could argue that these fall under the definition of crew-served weapons, but no matter, we won't see full auto ever allowed to citizens, except in rare instances and severe restrictions. Besides, this class of weapons is not the point of RKBA, all other civilian and military type semi-autos and other small arms operating actions are!...
View Quote
When my grandfather was in his teens, a person could walk into the local hardware store and buy sticks of TNT without any paper work or questions asked. Prior to 1934, any person could buy a fully automatic, belt fed, crew served weapon without any paper work or questions asked.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 9:22:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2001 9:26:37 PM EDT by QCMGR]
Originally Posted By punkatomic: Don't even bring up Nuclear Weapons! The Bill of Rights is about individual rights and the Second Amendment concerns small arms which are personal defense weapons and arms for the Militia.
View Quote
Where does it say anything about "small arms.”
Cannons, and artillery type crew-served weapons, mortars, land mines, as well as bombs from naval and air platforms are not small arms and are not part of the Second Amendment, they are weapons intended to be part of a military force in declared wars and under the control of our Armed Forces and Congress.
View Quote
The right of the people to keep and bear [b]arms[/b], shall not be infringed.
We have set a limit already on small arms to exclude fully automatic machine guns. One could argue that these fall under the definition of crew-served weapons, but no matter, we won't see full auto ever allowed to citizens, except in rare instances and severe restrictions. Besides, this class of weapons is not the point of RKBA, all other civilian and military type semi-autos and other small arms operating actions are!
View Quote
When did "we" do this? Think of it this way: The founding fathers understood force needed to be met with force. If the Chinese students in Tienmen square had tanks, they would not have been defeated. The RKBA is designed to keep tyrants under control.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 9:24:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DPeacher: When my grandfather was in his teens, a person could walk into the local hardware store and buy sticks of TNT without any paper work or questions asked. Prior to 1934, any person could buy a fully automatic, belt fed, crew served weapon without any paper work or questions asked.
View Quote
You mean prior to FDR and the "New Deal". I suppose the Gov't got nervous about turning us into a welfare State while it was still legal to have machine guns and TNT still in private hands. Disarm the people first, THEN redistribute their wealth.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 9:47:20 PM EDT
Hey BenDover: You aren't the kid that I read about (IIRC in Readers Digest) that put together enough nuclear material that when it was finally discovered caused an emergency nuclear hazard response and new laws to be written?
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 10:07:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2001 10:09:49 PM EDT by samuraiTy]
Originally Posted By timh70: Samuraity, why should carrying a firearm in public be against the law? It shouldit be against the law to carry a weapon if you have no criminal intent?? It Shouldn't. Here in NC, we are allowed by law t oopen carry, but if some weak bladdered individual gets scared, then I can be given a ticket, or arrested for "carrying to the terror"?? Is that right? No!! Your (not meaning you)unreasonable fear is NOT grounds for infringing on my rights. [smoke]
View Quote
Originally Posted By SamuraiTy: I guess I was trying to be brief. I probably need to look up brandish in a dictionary but what I mean is carrying it irresponsibly in public, you know, like walking down the street (maybe to the gun show) w/ it sholdered or pointing it at ppl and stuff as opposed to carrying it slung on your back or over you sholder w/ the barrel cracked. I mean carying it in such a manner that sugests that you have other than peacefull intentions. What I don't mean is using it, drawing it, presenting it or tactfully letting it be seen in a situation the threatents you'r life or the life of an inocent so as to deter the agressor. I you see a guy walking down the street pointing his weapon at people, by all means, brandish and fire away.
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 10:58:26 PM EDT
Beekeeper, Thanks for responding to me in a personal way that shows you know nothing about what you are talking about. I can't imagine anyone twisting the idea of "crew-served" to include your little single shot .22! You like making this stuff up? QCMGR, your clip and quote tactics are noteworthy. I guess you're always right aren't you. Let me see you "bear" a 2,000 pound cannon! Let's go back to the Eighteenth century when all this began. Were there machine guns? (No!) Cannons? (Yes.) Nuclear weapons? (No.) Small infantry arms, rifles, pistols? Militias, armed citizens? I'm not claiming to be the authority, I just want to add to this discussion. I'm not here to say anyone's wrong or stupid. These are my ideas, my experience, and I don't appreciate such utter disrepect on this discussion board. I could find you some good books about this subject and some reading material surrounding the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, The Second Amendment, as well as some literature of that era that might be insightful. I see that your minds are stubborn and you believe what you want and that's fine. Keep your snide comments in your head and away from the keyboard!
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 11:12:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: You should be able to do/own/use ANYTHING you want as long as you are not physically harming anyone in doing so. I also believe that if someone wants to place limitations upon rights, they may do so all they want, only as long as the restrictions only apply to themselves.
View Quote
Kinda correct as long as the persons intent isn't to harm you. In which case, it should be justifiable to inflict harm or death for the purpose of saving ones life or the life/lives of another/others. There are those "anti's" who find it "unreasonable" or "immoral" to even save a life by use of arms or force. Should they be forced to use force may they abide by their own advice.... Survival of the fittest!
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 11:17:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: I'd go for a 'no weapons of mass destruction' proviso written into the BOR. Just in case the guy next door has an accidental discharge, we don't want to vaporize, now do we? Eric The(Neighborly)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
I understand your intent but bear in mind that when the Machine Gun was invented many newspapers called them "Weapons of mass destruction". I think a better definition would be in order before such law were put into effect or it would be used against the people.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 11:47:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2001 11:51:20 PM EDT by punkatomic]
Weapons of mass destruction by definition destroy things (and people), and must also be indiscriminate in their effect. Bombs and land mines, artilliery and other such weapons generally kill without having their victims individually selected rather than specifically aiming at the enemy like a machine gunner does. Machine guns don't necessarily fall into this category. Sure, one could spray into a crowd without aiming at anyone or anything but the nature of a mass destructive device is more of an "Zone" weapon that targets an area and destroys it. The Second Amendment is not going to be rewritten to today's standards. The Supreme Court may someday define it appropriately as an individual right and define it's limits. It won't include war materiel or war ordnance, though.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 11:49:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 12:11:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2001 12:21:00 AM EDT by punkatomic]
The weapons infantrymen are issued in the battlefield are different than the rifle that they are issued as their personal responsibility. They usually have to be in the theatre of operations or the battlefield before they are issued and maintain possession of crew-served or artillery pieces. This is why soldiers carry M16's everywhere on the base unloaded and no mags, yet when over in A'stan they've got 'em locked and loaded always. The civilian body of the Militia was meant to maintain personal small arms, Congress could call up the Militia and arm them as they saw fit but generally any artillery pieces would have been part of a Militia organization and not personally owned by individuals. I'll work on a book list if you like. It'll take some time and effort, but I'll post something for ya! Here ya go, it's written by a Harvard professor who is not a gun advocate and is a woman who is very neutral on the issue: [url]http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=the+right+to+keep+and+bear+arms+the+origin&userid=1PLUILBU5O[/url]
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:34:44 AM EDT
Hmmm... If it is not absolute, the it is not a right. Rights are distinguished from privileges as being granted REGARDLESS of status. No licenses are required, no laws restrict their use. Of course, the converse of RIGHT is RESPONSIBILITY - and THAT is the restriction placed upon a right - the responsibility to use it correctly... For instance, we have the right to move freely about the country. Nowhere does it say that we can't go from state to state, nor are we limited in how we do it. Walk, run, snailback or train, if I want to go from here in KSSR to PRNY, I can do it. I can walk it, pay for a ticket on a train or bus, or drive. (more on driving in a moment...) BUT, I may not use that right to flee the scene of a crime I commit - to do so actually COMPOUNDS the crime! Thus, the responsibility. I said I'd get back to driving. It is often compared to the RKBA - but the two are entirely different! Driving a vehicle is a privilege - as evidenced by the byzantine vehicle code in most states, the licensing, the testing, and the constant presence of law enforcement. A license can be suspended (don't I know it!) whereas a right cannot. Of course, it is possible to be "stripped" of one's rights - but you lose them all. A felon - especially a violent one - loses his RKBA, his right to participate in government (you call it "voting") and many other rights. A felon is essentially a resident non-citizen. So, what laws should restrict the right to keep and bear arms? None. Common sense should rule, and if you misuse the right, you are subject to being stripped of ALL of your rights. Rights require responsibility... FFZ
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:49:27 AM EDT
Punkatomic - this one's for you.... I just read the REST of the thread (hey, I responded only after seeing the initial question! and I feel the need to add a few things for your benefit...) Reread the language of the Second Amendment. "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms..." Arms? What Arms? Why do they not list what sort of Arms? The men who wrote the Constitution were not stupid. They were men - like many of us, but they were able to think. They thought the idea of muzzleloaders might not be forever. They had already seen people go from loose powdwer in an powder horn to a paper powder packet under a lead bullet, and the paper cartridge assembly was not far behind. The Second was phrased the way it was to allow the common citizen to keep pace in small arms with the State. Now granted, it is impractical to own tanks and AFV's, but one should remember that in the race between warhead and armour, warhead always wins.... It takes relatively little payload to defeat a certain amount of armour, and you can only armour a moving object so much before it no longer moves. This was proven with the "phalanx" in Ancient Roman warfare, still using swords, shortbows, and spears. NO, we are unique in that we have a government that was conceived (in the beginning) to prevent a monopoly on the use of force. By allowing the commoner to keep force viable against the noble, the noble would hesitate at forceful means. I'd just as sooner not know that my neighbour has Anthrax cultures in the basement right next to the dual-use machinery, but I DO sleep a bit better knowing that he, like I, keeps a .45 handy at night. That is the beauty of the Second Amendment... Think about it. We can't keep up with the big stuff, but it still requires men to operate it, and men can be defeated with small arms... FFZ
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 6:27:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2001 6:37:39 AM EDT by Bearlaker]
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: No rights are absolute. We have many restrictions on the 1st Amendment (speech/expression clause) that apply to ALL citizens: (Libel, slander, conspiracy, perjury, fraud, giving false info to LEO, contract law, inciting riots, etc.) What are the reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment that you believe should be applied to ALL citizens?
View Quote
1) A citizen should be in control/be able to control/secure their guns. 2) A citizen should be able to own any gun they can afford with no restrictions or regulations other than #1. 3) No socialist/politician shall NOT have any input re: rule #1 or #2. END OF STORY.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 8:34:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: You mean prior to FDR and the "New Deal". I suppose the Gov't got nervous about turning us into a welfare State while it was still legal to have machine guns and TNT still in private hands. Disarm the people first, THEN redistribute their wealth.
View Quote
Exactley. In my freshman year at high school, American History was a required class. During the portion covering the Great Depression I asked my Grandfather about his experiences during that time. The story he told me explained his distaste for eating rabbit because his family ate just about nothing else for several years. Hauling buckets of water by hand out of the Noth Fork of the Big Nemaha River at Salem, Nebraska to mix the mortar for the new school, for the noble sum of 7 cents a day. Helping his neighbors create stock ponds by digging a deep post hole and put about 6 to 10 sticks of TNT in it, set it off and viola...you have a stock pond. Naturaly, I had to ask him where in the hell he got the TNT...
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 8:37:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2001 8:44:31 AM EDT by QCMGR]
Originally Posted By punkatomic: QCMGR, your clip and quote tactics are noteworthy.
View Quote
Thank you.
I guess you're always right aren't you.
View Quote
Yes, it is how I earn a living. Now Punk, At this point, if you intend to put me in my place, you need to cite the founding fathers definition of arms. You contend they meant small arms, I contend arms: Main Entry: arm Function: noun 1 a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense;
Let me see you "bear" a 2,000 pound cannon!
View Quote
Main Entry: bear Function: verb 1 a : to move while holding up and supporting [red]b : to be equipped or furnished with .[/red] Sounds easy. Now please Mr. Atomic, stop being a Punk. Go back and do some homework then speak.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 8:48:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: WRONG. Criminals do not get guns. Period. Convicted felons do not get to carry or own guns. That way if they are seen with a gun, we can shoot them.
View Quote
I have a real problem with this idea. I do agree, known violence prone people shouldn't be allowed to be armed. I also think rapist and child molesters should be castrated and tatood. The problem is, every fuckin thing is a felony. Got a joint in Reno, felony. See my point. What your implying is unless poeple meet some kind of moral standard they cant be armed. Who decides the standard.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 8:57:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 10:30:23 AM EDT
Punkatomic- What do you mean when yu said the weapons soldiers are issued on the battlefield are different from the one they are issued as their personnal responsibility? What do you mean when you said that soldiers have to be in the theater of operations or no the battlefield before they are issued and maintain possesion of crew served weapons and artillery pieces? Have you every been in any of the Armed Forces? Thanks, alpha
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:19:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By Libertoon: ...conspiracy, perjury, fraud, disinformation. these are crimes because the violate someone elses rights. conspiracy could be about murder, or theft...
View Quote
How does conspiracy violate someone else's rights? Simply discussing plans to commit a crime does not actually damage property or injury anyone. Simply talking seriously about robbing an armored is a crime? What about prior restraint?
View Quote
True, but plotting Murder (such as Presidential assassination) is not something to take lightly. it is an expressed threat once discovered. If Terrorists (domestic) plan on blowing up a federal building with say...a child day care center or a Bank Robbery. it would be necessary to investigate and prosecute based on discovered evidence. i know someone may say the hate the President, or say what they would do to him if alone in a room. Conspiracy is more than just banter. a Conspiracy is something you are actually planning to do and carry out. not an idle threat. THE_Lib
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top