the prez's use of executive order on gun control

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Row6

Say what?

Maybe you had to be there or just read the tread. You're not making any sense.

I read the tread. It didn't make any sense.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

It's your interpretation of of a quote that's in question. It appears to be shallow and muddled in a way to be formed around your own radical beliefs.

Can you be specific?

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

I read the tread. It didn't make any sense.

Maybe you can catch up on the next one.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by Row6

The constitution and Bill of Rights both require that it be regulated. It is not and therefore it is an abandoned concept, i.e., archaic.

Whether the government does anything with regard to the militia or not, it exists in perpetuity as the totality of the citizenry able and willing to take up arms in defense of the constitution/country from all threats including internal tyranny. It is well regulated because the people can keep and bear arms, regardless of any action or inaction on the part of the government.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Row6

That is your interpretation and you're welcome to it, but there are others and they are also based on the wording of the constitution which describes in some detail what the "well regulated" aspects of militias would entail. That regulation has been abandoned except in the case of the National Guard and the connection of gun owners to the militias of the constitution is tenuous. In fact the SC has upheld regulation of arms even though the current right wing court is loosening it - it still acknowledges the principle and so do the vast majority of all Americans including all but the most extreme right wing gun owners.

All those, totally disingeuous, readingd are premised on trying to sell the load of crap that, while nine of the first ten Amendments promised as a condition of ratification are explicit limitations on the federal government, the second is actually a grant of power, i.e. "regulating" (in its contemporary usage) the citizen militia.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by helix139

They can still be wrong, as evidenced by brown v board of education overturning plessy v ferguson. They are just wrong with authority.

They weren't wrong, they just changed their minds

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

There has to be something protecting that right and what do think that is? What is reasonable to you would probably differ to many people.

No doubt what is "reasonable" ownership is where the debate is at present. That being said, can you please stop reflexively claiming that people want to confiscate all your guns and kill the second amendment when are debating that?

[helix139]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

They weren't wrong, they just changed their minds

If law is just a matter of opinion as you are implying, then they can't be right either

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by helix139

If law is just a matter of opinion as you are implying, then they can't be right either

By definition they are always right, just like my wife


It is certainly possible that none of the lawyers who have argued second amendment cases before the supreme court were as brilliant as our esteemed colleagues here on too hot, but I'm going to go with what the supreme court says. Now if we were talking about a bill going through congress that would benefit their donors or peers, that would be different.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

All those, totally disingeuous, readingd are premised on trying to sell the load of crap that, while nine of the first ten Amendments promised as a condition of ratification are explicit limitations on the federal government, the second is actually a grant of power, i.e. "regulating" (in its contemporary usage) the citizen militia.

Is "load of crap" a legal term? The limitation is in the constitution where the militias are trained and supplied by the Congress and their CIC is the president.

I have maintained from the beginning that 2nd amendment is not clear - either for or against gun ownership - and that multiple interpretations are possible among well intentioned readers when considering it and the treatment of militias in the Constitution. The history of the issue and of the writing of these documents includes those who agree with you, but also others who didn't. The amendment is garbled for several reasons and this is part of it. Militias where a practical matter of the day for national (and state) self defense as there was no significant standing army for reasons including relying on the Brits - who, BTW, imposed those taxes to help pay for our own defense during the French-Indian War - and saving money and principled ones having to do with fear of their power. For an easy summary of that history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by helix139

Whether the government does anything with regard to the militia or not, it exists in perpetuity as the totality of the citizenry able and willing to take up arms in defense of the constitution/country from all threats including internal tyranny. It is well regulated because the people can keep and bear arms, regardless of any action or inaction on the part of the government.

True dat. But that is not how . . . some . . . people think it reads, because they either worry that it means exactly what it says, or it shames them that they won't believe it does.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by helix139

Whether the government does anything with regard to the militia or not, it exists in perpetuity as the totality of the citizenry able and willing to take up arms in defense of the constitution/country from all threats including internal tyranny. It is well regulated because the people can keep and bear arms, regardless of any action or inaction on the part of the government.

I agree with the first sentence though the last phrase is open to interpretation. I don't get the last which discusses "well regulated", especially in light of the Constitution.

Do you think the state can abridge you're right to fighter jets and nuclear weapons and any other weapons not covered by international law such as the Geneva conventions?

[gatormoe1]

Row why do we need gun control now if gun deaths are decreasing and violent crime is down 50% in the last 20 years?

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatormoe1

Row why do we need gun control now if gun deaths are decreasing and violent crime is down 50% in the last 20 years?

All violent crimes are down thankfully but in terms of gun deaths we are still many miles "ahead" of the rest of the civilized world.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by Row6

I agree with the first sentence though the last phrase is open to interpretation. I don't get the last which discusses "well regulated", especially in light of the Constitution.

Do you think the state can abridge you're right to fighter jets and nuclear weapons and any other weapons not covered by international law such as the Geneva conventions?

The jets themselves are not weapons. It's possible for a private citizen to buy a fighter jet in this country, it just will be de-weaponized with the high caliber machine guns, missiles, bombs, etc. removed. Historically, arms in the context of the militia has never really referred to ordinance or crew-served weapons, though, but rather individual arms.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by Row6

Can you be specific?

Isn't your belief that the the government has the power to randomly ban weapons and to have a mandatory database of registered firearms and the owners? Obviously it's your belief that rifles should be banned, so what about the ones people have? Should they be confiscated? What exactly does the second amendment protect?

[gatormoe1]

Originally Posted by Row6

All violent crimes are down thankfully but in terms of gun deaths we are still many miles "ahead" of the rest of the civilized world.

They are steadily decreasing. Also, a good majority of the gun deaths we have are in metropolitan areas and we have probably the second most metropolitan areas in the world.

Gun deaths by rifles/assault rifles only account for about 5% of the overall deaths. So again, why do we need gun laws now and why are we campaigning against assault rifles when they clearly are not the problem?

By comparison, blunt objects are the cause of more murders per year than assault rifles, so are murders with limbs of our body. So, why aren't you campaigning against hammers, bats, etc and why aren't you campaigning for everyone to have all limbs amputated?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

No doubt what is "reasonable" ownership is where the debate is at present. That being said, can you please stop reflexively claiming that people want to confiscate all your guns and kill the second amendment when are debating that?

The second amendment is what this debate is about and there is an undeniable assault on it which is clear and present. Lets not pretend this has not been in the sites of leftists for a long long time. Remember, never let a good crises go to waste.
Would you like me to post the video of Eric Holder from the other thread talking about brainwashing people about guns?

[gator996]

Originally Posted by gatormoe1

They are steadily decreasing. Also, a good majority of the gun deaths we have are in metropolitan areas and we have probably the second most metropolitan areas in the world.

Gun deaths by rifles/assault rifles only account for about 5% of the overall deaths. So again, why do we need gun laws now and why are we campaigning against assault rifles when they clearly are not the problem?

By comparison, blunt objects are the cause of more murders per year than assault rifles, so are murders with limbs of our body. So, why aren't you campaigning against hammers, bats, etc and why aren't you campaigning for everyone to have all limbs amputated?

Nice that they are declining...
Because the amount of gun deaths is still way too high...

Let's get them to drop faster.


Bombs cause even fewer deaths than handguns or assault rifles....

How about land mines and IED's....

So should those be legal as well?

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Isn't your belief that the the government has the power to randomly ban weapons and to have a mandatory database of registered firearms and the owners? Obviously it's your belief that rifles should be banned, so what about the ones people have? Should they be confiscated? What exactly does the second amendment protect?

I own a shotgun, so no, I don't think rifles should be banned, and I don't think government has the right to "randomly" do anything. The 2nd amendment reserves the right of citizens to own arms as necessary for the purposes of a well regulated militia, as elsewhere defined in the constitution. What that means in modern times when such an institution does not exist except for the National Guard is open for debate and I don't have a well thought out position on that. I do think it allows our government of democratically elected representatives and president and courts appointed by them to act to interpret that and the courts have always held the right to not be absolute, or you could buy any weapon you could afford. You can't.