|
|
Post by uwaztec on Oct 10, 2009 9:02:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 10, 2009 9:11:59 GMT -8
Your first two links show aberrations to the norm and do not constitute a reason to change anything. The last one shows where enforcement needs to be tightened up. I respect your opinion and your right to that opinion. I just have a different perspective and I am sure can find links to stories to support my point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Oct 10, 2009 9:36:18 GMT -8
Your first two links show aberrations to the norm and do not constitute a reason to change anything. The last one shows where enforcement needs to be tightened up. I respect your opinion and your right to that opinion. I just have a different perspective and I am sure can find links to stories to support my point of view. Yes Win, just bringing up for discussion. Actually I was thinking Davesid would jump all over this. I was just thinking that there is a lot of paranoia generated with this gun issue. Let's assume they are necessary in every home. I have more than a hundred Friends I know very well... a few have guns locked away (mostly because of kids). Including myself then, why can't I think of one person who has ever needed one other than for hunting? I have had a gun pointed at me once in a bank robbery many years ago at the bank of America in PB. There were 50 people on the floor (along with me) and 3 guys... 2 with automatic weapons and one with a hand gun. We were told that "first one that moves is dead". All I could think about was I hope there aren't any heroes or yahoos that are armed in here. I just wanted the guys out the door with the money....and that's what happened. Conversely, I have many Friends who have been affected by car accidents...including the death of my best friends daughter and my dad (years ago). So, I just think the perceived outside threat (necessitating arms)is overblown.....and some people are more of a danger when they have them. Would I have a weapon if I lived in Alaska or Chula Vista?... probably. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 10, 2009 9:41:44 GMT -8
Of course everyone does not need a gun. That's a non sequitur. One might as well ask, "Does everybody need a knife?" Every responsible citizen has the right to own one. Should there be restrictions and guidelines? Yes. (Convicted felons should not have that right, for one. Five year olds should not saunter into a store to pick up a shotgun or two, etc.) Here is a fact that many gun control advocates ignore. There are many recorded cases each year of citizens using guns to defend themselves and to stop or prevent crimes. Such information seems to be an inconvenient truth. www.rense.com/general76/univ.htmAzWm |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Oct 10, 2009 10:13:52 GMT -8
Of course everyone does not need a gun. That's a non sequitur. One might as well ask, "Does everybody need a knife?" Every responsible citizen has the right to own one. Should there be restrictions and guidelines? Yes. (Convicted felons should not have that right, for one. Five year olds should not saunter into a store to pick up a shotgun or two, etc.) Here is a fact that many gun control advocates ignore. There are many recorded cases each year of citizens using guns to defend themselves and to stop or prevent crimes. Such information seems to be an inconvenient truth. www.rense.com/general76/univ.htmAzWm William.... would be interesting to see total statistics for defense... versus use on family members, accidents etc. I saw a piece yesterday where the freshman punter for (think it was one of the major Florida colleges) killed himself by accident). Not advocating a ban, just wonder about the ever expanding paranoia generating sales and ownership. Again, I have a pretty big sample size and I cannot come up with one example of someone I know having had to use one for defense. (I am 55). |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 10, 2009 13:08:17 GMT -8
First, I think that the discussions should not be guns in general, but hand guns, hunting rifles, and weapons that even I think should be given a second look. UW, I can understand having both a hunting rifle and a hand gun if you lived in Alaska, but why in Chula Vista? A hand gun in Chula Vista would be what I would keep, but my rifles and shot guns would be hidden away in the attic or somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Oct 10, 2009 17:34:47 GMT -8
First, I think that the discussions should not be guns in general, but hand guns, hunting rifles, and weapons that even I think should be given a second look. UW, I can understand having both a hunting rifle and a hand gun if you lived in Alaska, but why in Chula Vista? A hand gun in Chula Vista would be what I would keep, but my rifles and shot guns would be hidden away in the attic or somewhere. I would have to research....but just something for emergency protection while fishing around brown bears.....just used Chula Vista as an example...which may not be good. I have never really lived in an area where I felt like I needed a weapon. The only time I have felt threatened was by alcoholic / crazy neighbors who were known to be armed to the teeth. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 10, 2009 18:26:47 GMT -8
I think there is no doubt that many on the Left (and perhaps in the middle) sincerely believe that we should institute an outright ban on personal possession of firearms as a means of ending gun violence. Let me stress again that I concede that the vast majority of people who believe that are good, sincere, well-meaning Americans.
The problem is that getting rid of all the guns in this country is impossible. What would happen is that criminals would ignore the ban while law-abiding citizens would lose a right that they have had for over two centuries.
I am greatly disturbed by all the violence that occurs because of guns. But an outright ban would not work and might very well come close to provoking a serious and violent insurgency.
As for weapons used for self-defense, just check out the link I provided in my previous post.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 11, 2009 16:32:29 GMT -8
>>Again, I have a pretty big sample size and I cannot come up with one example of someone I know having had to use one for defense.<< Well, just because you don't "know" them doesn't invalidate the principle of armed self defense. This does not suggest that I think "everybody" should be armed. Still, there's a hell of a lot more to it than your "sample size": www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Oct 11, 2009 19:58:38 GMT -8
Davesid, I do not disagree with many of your points. I am just saying there is an argument to be made here.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 12, 2009 7:55:41 GMT -8
I wish, once and for all, that the Supreme Court would get some balls and rule on the exact meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 12, 2009 9:55:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 12, 2009 12:24:29 GMT -8
Unambiguous? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.The Second Amendment holds the distinction of being the only amendment to the Bill of Rights that essentially goes unenforced. The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down any piece of legislation on Second Amendment grounds, in part because justices have disagreed on whether the amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms as an individual right, or as a component of the "well-regulated militia." I guess it depends upon how you read it. I'm assuming you are a 'gun rights' guy and therefore only the part after the 2nd comma has any meaning to you. I, on the other hand, read the whole sentence and believe that to own and bear arms one must be a member of a state militia. That is why the Supremes have to rule. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 12, 2009 14:05:29 GMT -8
Unambiguous? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.The Second Amendment holds the distinction of being the only amendment to the Bill of Rights that essentially goes unenforced. The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down any piece of legislation on Second Amendment grounds, in part because justices have disagreed on whether the amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms as an individual right, or as a component of the "well-regulated militia." I guess it depends upon how you read it. I'm assuming you are a 'gun rights' guy and therefore only the part after the 2nd comma has any meaning to you. I, on the other hand, read the whole sentence and believe that to own and bear arms one must be a member of a state militia. That is why the Supremes have to rule. You need to catch up. The Supremes have ruled: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 12, 2009 16:29:48 GMT -8
Interesting read. Scalia defined the wording of the Amendment quite well. He even showed how both sections are tied together. Then he basically ignored that tie, as he inferred that he would do.
This was a very narrow ruling only applying to the District of Columbia. The real test might be the Chicago case as it applies to the states.
There was serious descent by Stevens and Breyer on the relationship of the two parts of the Amendment.
I disagree that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been clarified in any great degree. Yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 12, 2009 16:43:18 GMT -8
>>>The real test might be the Chicago case as it applies to the states.<<<
Yep. And Cert has been granted. With two other appeals held in reserve.
And two thirds of the state attorneys general have filed Amicus briefs supporting incorporation into the 14th Amendment making the 2nd apply to the states. That's enough to call for a Constitutional Convention.
You may not "like" it, but it's coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 12, 2009 17:08:29 GMT -8
Unambiguous? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.The Second Amendment holds the distinction of being the only amendment to the Bill of Rights that essentially goes unenforced. The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down any piece of legislation on Second Amendment grounds, in part because justices have disagreed on whether the amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms as an individual right, or as a component of the "well-regulated militia." I guess it depends upon how you read it. I'm assuming you are a 'gun rights' guy and therefore only the part after the 2nd comma has any meaning to you. I, on the other hand, read the whole sentence and believe that to own and bear arms one must be a member of a state militia. That is why the Supremes have to rule. Ignore the rulings, but just concentrate on the language. No matter how you read it or what weight you give to the "commas" it is just plain English. You might wish that it was not so and you might also side with those on the Supreme Court who would like to change the meaning to match what they feel about the issue, but it is plain as the bulbous nose on your face.  I crossed out the part that I was not sure of since I don't think we have met. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 13, 2009 7:07:28 GMT -8
Unambiguous? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.The Second Amendment holds the distinction of being the only amendment to the Bill of Rights that essentially goes unenforced. The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down any piece of legislation on Second Amendment grounds, in part because justices have disagreed on whether the amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms as an individual right, or as a component of the "well-regulated militia." I guess it depends upon how you read it. I'm assuming you are a 'gun rights' guy and therefore only the part after the 2nd comma has any meaning to you. I, on the other hand, read the whole sentence and believe that to own and bear arms one must be a member of a state militia. That is why the Supremes have to rule. Ignore the rulings, but just concentrate on the language. No matter how you read it or what weight you give to the "commas" it is just plain English. You might wish that it was not so and you might also side with those on the Supreme Court who would like to change the meaning to match what they feel about the issue, but it is plain as the bulbous nose on your face. I crossed out the part that I was not sure of since I don't think we have met. As I said. You read it one way and I read it another. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Oct 13, 2009 11:08:47 GMT -8
As I said. You read it one way and I read it another. Would it effect your interpretation if you knew the intent of those that wrote and voted on the amendment? |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 13, 2009 14:46:27 GMT -8
|
|
