HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Creative solutions to gun violence in the U.S. II

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-04-2013, 08:03 AM
  #76
ChicagoBlues
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,330
vCash: 500
Solution: Fully fund public education and pay the teachers appropriately.

Provide economic opportunities to those at the highest risk of gun violence.

In Chicago the gang culture must be consistently denounced and the glamour removed from the lifestyle.

Begin anti-corruption training in elementary school. It worked in Sydney, Australia. Or maybe it was Melbourne.

Gun violence is a systemic issue and must treated in a holistic and comprehensive manner.

ChicagoBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 08:20 AM
  #77
Jussi
I am siege face
 
Jussi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 44,028
vCash: 612
Ideal solution is to have guns just like in the movie Dredd: ID lock.

Jussi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 08:37 AM
  #78
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,352
vCash: 500




They are going after handguns too. Civil rights grab, unashamedly so. I am disappointed that some of you here support this sort of thing. It's not unlike SOPA or NDAA. We should defend our rights where possible. We should always be wary of legislation introduced immediately following an emotional event. So many of you who harpooned the Patriot Act now support these gun bans. The best part is that the bill makes no real attempt at solving crime; all weapons and magazines are grandfathered in. As in "we will do nothing to address the endless millions of firearms already out there."

I am disappointed that legislators would use such a tragedy as a springboard for heavy-handed legislation that seeks to erode our rights. They know full well that this sort of **** wouldn't stand a chance in the absence of such an event. Similar legislation hasn't prevented it from happening in so-called 'safe' countries either. This is just a blatant erosion of our rights for the sake of feeling good for a moment. It's like Feinstein and Co. don't even understand the full implications of what they are proposing. The sheer funding required alone should make you guys wonder what they are thinking.

XX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 08:43 AM
  #79
ChicagoBlues
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,330
vCash: 500
I want a gurantee that all firearms collected at turn in events are destroyed.

ChicagoBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 08:46 AM
  #80
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,061
vCash: 500
one of the types of ammo that would be banned in IL would be the .50 BMG:




Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 08:48 AM
  #81
ChicagoBlues
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,330
vCash: 500
2nd Amendment is outdated. XX, to exercise rights a relative state of safety must exist.

ChicagoBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 08:57 AM
  #82
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoBlues View Post
2nd Amendment is outdated. XX, to exercise rights a relative state of safety must exist.
You do not get to pick and choose amendments like you are ordering a happy meal. It's the Bill of Rights. The 2nd amendment is not 'outdated', as it serves it's purpose beautifully. The founding fathers, having witnessed the tyranny of the state, ensured that citizens would have unalienable rights regarding firearm ownership. The 'militia' was intended for use against a potential dictatorship/out of control government as much as it was a defense from foreign invaders. You can re-state this in terms more favorable to your agenda, but that does not make it so in the eyes of the courts. There is a reason Americans enjoy relatively unfettered access to sporting firearms, as it is hard-coded into the very fabric of the nation. That was by design.

Me carrying a concealed weapon does not put you in danger. Any law that seeks to strip the rights of an individual to carry firearms presupposes that the individual is guilty of crime beforehand, without actually having committed one, in the name of public safety. That the main sponsor of this very bill carries with her a firearm for self-defense should show you how insane this all is. That gun she carries? Banned under her own legislation. It is absolutely not about public safety, as assault weapons are involved in a trivial amount (1%) of crime. If you look at the proposed details of the new AWB, it is a flat-out gun grab the likes of which hasn't been seen before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
one of the types of ammo that would be banned in IL would be the .50 BMG:
Under the AWB, a bolt action rifle chambered in .50 (capable of bringing down something like a helicopter) would be fully legal. This is not about safety. I encourage you to look up the number of crimes committed with .50 caliber weapons. Considering the cost of such devices and the ammo, it just ain't worth it to shoot humans.

XX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:01 AM
  #83
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,547
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
They are going after handguns too. Civil rights grab, unashamedly so. I am disappointed that some of you here support this sort of thing. It's not unlike SOPA or NDAA. We should defend our rights where possible. We should always be wary of legislation introduced immediately following an emotional event. So many of you who harpooned the Patriot Act now support these gun bans. The best part is that the bill makes no real attempt at solving crime; all weapons and magazines are grandfathered in. As in "we will do nothing to address the endless millions of firearms already out there."

I am disappointed that legislators would use such a tragedy as a springboard for heavy-handed legislation that seeks to erode our rights. They know full well that this sort of **** wouldn't stand a chance in the absence of such an event. Similar legislation hasn't prevented it from happening in so-called 'safe' countries either. This is just a blatant erosion of our rights for the sake of feeling good for a moment. It's like Feinstein and Co. don't even understand the full implications of what they are proposing. The sheer funding required alone should make you guys wonder what they are thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
You do not get to pick and choose amendments like you are ordering a happy meal. It's the Bill of Rights. The 2nd amendment is not 'outdated', as it serves it's purpose beautifully. The founding fathers, having witnessed the tyranny of the state, ensured that citizens would have unalienable rights regarding firearm ownership. The 'militia' was intended for use against a potential dictatorship/out of control government as much as it was a defense from foreign invaders. You can re-state this in terms more favorable to your agenda, but that does not make it so in the eyes of the courts. There is a reason Americans enjoy relatively unfettered access to sporting firearms, as it is hard-coded into the very fabric of the nation. That was by design.

Me carrying a concealed weapon does not put you in danger. Any law that seeks to strip the rights of an individual to carry firearms presupposes that the individual is guilty of crime before, without actually having committed one, in the name of public safety. That the main sponsor of this very bill carries with her a firearm for self-defense should show you how insane this all is. That gun she carries? Banned under her own legislation. It is absolutely not about public safety, as assault weapons are involved in a trivial amount (1%) of crime. If you look at the proposed details of the new AWB, it is a flat-out gun grab the likes of which hasn't been seen before.



Under the AWB, a bolt action rifle chambered in .50 (capable of bringing down something like a helicopter) would be fully legal. This is not about safety. I encourage you to look up the number of crimes committed with .50 caliber weapons. Considering the cost of such devices and the ammo, it just ain't worth it to shoot humans.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:02 AM
  #84
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,061
vCash: 500
what is it with two-lettered posters from Arizona?

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:07 AM
  #85
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
Quote:
To those who would pretend the Second Amendment doesn't exist or insist it doesn't mean what it says, there is only one legitimate response: “If you don’t like the Second Amendment, you may try to repeal it but short of that you may not disparage and usurp it, even a little bit, as long as it remains a part of the Constitution, no exceptions, no conniving revisions, no fabricated judicial balancing acts.”

Gun control advocates attempt to avoid the real issue of gun rights—why the Founders felt so strongly about gun rights that they singled them out for special protection in the Bill of Rights—by demanding that individual rights be balanced against a counterfeit collective right to “security” from things that go bump in the night. But, the Bill of Rights was not a Bill of Entitlements that people had a right to demand from government; it was a Bill of Protections against the government itself. The Founders understood that the right to own and bare laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights.

That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms.

They do that by insisting on a tortured construction of the Second Amendment that converts individual rights into states rights. The short-arm artists assert that the Second Amendment’s reference to the necessity of a “well-regulated militia” proves the amendment is all about state’s rights, not individuals rights; it was written into the Bill of Rights simply to guarantee that state governments could assemble a fighting force quick, on the cheap to defend against foreign invasion and domestic disturbance. Consequently, Second-Amendment revisionists would have us believe the Second Amendment does little more than guarantee the right of states to maintain militias; and, since the state militias were replaced by the National Guard in the early twentieth century, the Second Amendment has virtually no contemporary significance. Gun controllers would, in effect, do to the Second Amendment what earlier collectivizers and centralizers did to the Tenth Amendment, namely render it a dead letter.

The truth is, the Founders understood a “well regulated” militia to mean a militia “functioning/operating properly,” not a militia “controlled or managed by the government.” This is clearly evidenced by Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of militias in Federalist #29 and by one of the Oxford Dictionary’s archaic definitions of “regulate;” “(b) Of troops: Properly disciplined.”

The Founders intended that a well-regulated militia was to be the first, not the last line of defense against a foreign invader or social unrest. But, they also intended militias to be the last, not the first line of defense against tyrannical government. In other words, the Second Amendment was meant to be the constitutional protection for a person’s musket behind the door, later the shotgun behind the door and today the M4 behind the door—a constitutional guarantee of the right of individuals to defend themselves against any and all miscreants, private or government, seeking to do them harm.

The unfettered right to own and bear arms consecrates individual sovereignty and ordains the right of self-defense. The Second Amendment symbolizes and proclaims individuals’ right to defend themselves personally against any and all threatened deprivations of life, liberty or property, including attempted deprivations by the government. The symbolism of a heavily armed citizenry says loudly and unequivocally to the government, “Don’t Tread On Me.”

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Both Jefferson and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also knew that their government would never fear a people without guns, and they understood as well that the greatest threat to liberty was not foreign invasion or domestic unrest but rather a standing army and a militarized police force without fear of the people and capable of inflicting tyranny upon the people.

That is what prompted Madison to contrast the new national government he had helped create to the kingdoms of Europe, which he characterized as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” Madison assured his fellow Americans that under the new Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights, they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed.”

But, Noah Webster said it most succinctly and most eloquently:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

That is why the Founders looked to local militias as much to provide a check—in modern parlance, a “deterrent”—against government tyranny as against an invading foreign power. Guns are individuals’ own personal nuclear deterrent against their own government gone rogue. Therefore, a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate deterrent against tyranny.
A little reading for the child. Anyone going to contest these points? Or are we going to continue to circle-jerk over ineffectual legislation so that we may feel better about ourselves?

XX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:12 AM
  #86
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,061
vCash: 500
Yeah I'm sure an M4 behind the door is going to do a lot of good if the government decides to take you out.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:17 AM
  #87
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
You should be shot, on principle, for referring to them as silencers. Next you're going to tell me we need to ban high capacity clips.



It's almost like you know **** all about guns.

Even if the new AWB passes (it won't), it's not going to do much. Just like the original one. What's that saying about doing things over and over again, only to expect a different result? I think the most hilarious part of all of this is that Feinstein, who wants to ban handguns, actually carries one for self-defense. They also aren't going to be able to force people to comply. The additional funding the ATF will need in order to NFA every grandfathered weapon in existence (if this crap passed) should give pause to anyone concerned about bigger government/a police state. We may as well drop all pretense and just go full nanny state if it passes.

There will be serious violence if there is ever an attempt to disarm the majority of owners out there. It's going to happen.



I will.

Please present the data figures for # of CCW holders involved in violent crimes committed via firearm. Then please present the total # of CCW holders
.
Congratulations Einstein. You are making my point for me. I have never argued to ban guns, limit magazine sizes or any other such step. My point is that anyone that wants to own or use firearms or buy ammo or the materials to make their own loads be trained tested and licensed.

Know what the difference between CCW holders and regular schmucks that go and buy guns is? Training, testing and licensing.

Here's your prize.


Doppler Drift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:19 AM
  #88
Diskothek
Registered User
 
Diskothek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
one of the types of ammo that would be banned in IL would be the .50 BMG:
I'd be surprised if you could show me one case, no matter when, of someone being murdered with a .50BMG platform rifle.

Diskothek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:19 AM
  #89
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
Yeah I'm sure an M4 behind the door is going to do a lot of good if the government decides to take you out.
How well did the US forces do against a bunch of untrained insurgents with AKs and cell phones? Not very well. But your point serves mine; so long as there is a large body of armed citizenry, the government cannot possibly hope to abuse their power in a flagrant manner. Several hundred million firearms later, along with their owners, and we're there. I consider an outright gun grab a flagrant violation of constitutional rights, and the exact situation the 2nd amendment was intended for.

Remember Webster?

Quote:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
And I quote Hamilton:

Quote:
The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
It's pretty clear that an armed citizenry, regulated by the individual states or not, was enshrined in the Bill of Rights for a reason.

XX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:21 AM
  #90
Francesa
(╯□)╯︵ SƖ ןɥu ɐǝ
 
Francesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 183,787
vCash: 500
The simple solution is to ban violent movies and other similar forms of media which "encourage" violence.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/m...gross/1808093/

Quote:
Tarantino was sailing through a lighthearted interview when things got decidedly tense and often awkward after the director laughed about the intense beatings in his new film, which he called "Spaghetti Western" beatings.

"And what do you like about that?" Gross asked.

"What do I like about it?" Tarantino asked with surprise, before laughing nervously. "It's fun."

Gross asked: "Are there times when it is just not a fun movie experience for you, either to be making it that way or to be in the audience?"

"Not for me," Tarantino said flatly.

After a few other tense exchanges, Tarantino added.

"Would I watch a kung fu movie three days after the Sandy Hook massacre? Maybe. Because they have nothing to do with each other."

"You sound annoyed," Gross responded.

Tarantino wrapped up the subject with his thoughts on movies and violence.

"I've been asked this question for 20 years," he said. "About the effects of violence in movies relating to violence in real life. And my answer is the same as 20 years ago. It hasn't changed one iota."

Francesa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:23 AM
  #91
Bert Marshall days
Registered User
 
Bert Marshall days's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rizer View Post
If you use a knife or other potentially lethal instrument to do anything in life, then GET A LIFE! You don't need to cut vegetables to get your jollies!

Ban guns. That will stop people from killing each other. Like it has through human history.

Problem solved.
You'd rather have people choke to death on uncut vegetables. As long as people are killed, you're happy. (especially via guns)

How can they GET A LIFE when choking to death or getting blown away by guns? Some will get a life by gun bans. Make it harder for gun loons to kill others.

The lamest, weakest drivel stance of moron gun loons is when they compare cars, alcohol and food knives to guns and ignore the slowing (vs stopping) of deaths gun bans would bring. The purpose of a food knife is to cut food. The purpose of a gun is to kill. But they have nothing better to respond with. Maybe they blow away their vegetables with an assault rifle? What other purpose does it serve?

Show us how many people were killed with a butter knife as opposed to guns. Remove the lame stance like above and...........problem solved.

Bert Marshall days is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:23 AM
  #92
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,016
vCash: 500
The reason for the push to ban high-ammo automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons is not because they are responsible for the highest (or even a high) total number of deaths, so posting those sorts of statistics is pointless. It's because they are almost exclusively responsible for deaths occurring in indiscriminate mass shootings where the shooter is psychopathic/insane.

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:24 AM
  #93
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,547
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
A little reading for the child. Anyone going to contest these points? Or are we going to continue to circle-jerk over ineffectual legislation so that we may feel better about ourselves?
As soon as I see the words "what the founders thought", I have no reason to accept the argument as valid. The thoughts of the founders are irrelevant today. The court system and our current modern society decides what's the best course of action for a given situation, not people who died 200 years ago. The people in the present who make these decisions might take some inspiration from them, but they also might not, and there's nothing wrong with it if they don't.

Also, you have to show that the legislation would be ineffectual. I don't buy it for a second that it would be, but if you have some information that shows it might not be, feel free to present it for a critique.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:28 AM
  #94
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,547
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert Marshall days View Post
You'd rather have people choke to death on uncut vegetables. As long as people are killed, you're happy. (especially via guns)

How can they GET A LIFE when choking to death or getting blown away by guns? Some will get a life by gun bans. Make it harder for gun loons to kill others.

The lamest, weakest drivel stance of moron gun loons is when they compare cars, alcohol and food knives to guns. The purpose of a food knife is to cut food. The purpose of a gun is to kill. But they have nothing better to respond with. Maybe they blow away their vegetables with an assault rifle? What other purpose does it serve?

Show us how many people were killed with a butter knife as opposed to guns. Remove the lame stance like above and...........problem solved.
One also has to note that knives that don't serve the basic purpose of cutting food, for example machetes, do have bans in place even in some places in the USA (New Jersey for one). 'Cause you know that "not all knives are made to cut food" is going to be their next argument.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:35 AM
  #95
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
The reason for the push to ban high-ammo automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons is not because they are responsible for the highest (or even a high) total number of deaths, so posting those sorts of statistics is pointless. It's because they are almost exclusively responsible for deaths occurring in indiscriminate mass shootings where the shooter is psychopathic/insane.
That's swell. Except that the Newtown shooter procured his weapons illegally. So, really, expecting the law to have some sort of lasting effect on 1% of crime is silly. If statistics showed that Ford Crown Victorias and Mercury Grand Marquis are involved in 95% of all fatal accidents caused by senior citizens, would we move to ban them? buy them back and turn them into scrap? Place limits on future dimensions of cars, or the weight? No. If it was something approaching a statistic worth talking about, we'd rightfully tackle the issue of senior citizen drivers and more heavily license and train them. If things got really bad, we might consider a ban on driving alone above a certain age.

I am all for closing gun show loopholes and the like, but it's silly if we think that's going to make a measurable dent in firearm violence. All indicators, as posted by myself and numerous others, are that a more comprehensive approach (mainly focused on economic measures) would be far, far more impactful. It's just easier to blame the scary object. Lanza was actually stopped by the background check system a few days before. Amazing, right? Too bad he just went out and stole some firearms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
As soon as I see the words "what the founders thought", I have no reason to accept the argument as valid.
That's nice, for an academic argument. Here in the states, 'what those old dudes thought' forms the basis of most law. So, yeah, they kind of matter.

XX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:45 AM
  #96
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,547
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
That's nice, for an academic argument. Here in the states, 'what those old dudes thought' forms the basis of most law. So, yeah, they kind of matter.
I disagree.

For starters, the Pledge of Allegiance and the motto on the coins would never have been things that "those old dudes thought" was good. Many old laws would have been, but modern laws aren't influenced as much as they used to by them, if they are at all.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 11:36 AM
  #97
Vtwin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
As soon as I see the words "what the founders thought", I have no reason to accept the argument as valid. The thoughts of the founders are irrelevant today. The court system and our current modern society decides what's the best course of action for a given situation, not people who died 200 years ago. The people in the present who make these decisions might take some inspiration from them, but they also might not, and there's nothing wrong with it if they don't.

Also, you have to show that the legislation would be ineffectual. I don't buy it for a second that it would be, but if you have some information that shows it might not be, feel free to present it for a critique.
LOL

The "founders" were in a position to pen the constitution because they rose up and took by force the oppportunity to get out from under a system of government far older than the American experiment in a demcratic republic. The two hundred years between then and now is a blink of the eye.

The founders attempted to write into the constitution the ability of future Americans to do the exact same thing if the government tried to get bit to big for it's britches.

Those old dudes also were giving the citizens the right to carry the same weapons as the best military in the world carried. There was not as large a difference between the farmer's weapon and the soldiers weapon then as there is now.

Believing that just because a measly 200 years has passed makes the constitution or any part of it invalid is simplistic at best.

You could argue that armed citizenry doesn't stand a chance against our modern army but many would point out that if it ever came to that how much of the army is going to follow orders to kill their fellow countryman, family, friends and neighbors.

Of course there is that whole being held off by insurgents with barely a pot to piss in in various places around the world you need to explain also.

Vtwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 11:52 AM
  #98
Vtwin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppler Drift View Post
1) To carry what and where? Handgun? Rifle? Shotgun? Loaded or unloaded? In your hand? Open or concealed? In your car? In a lock-box? Some states you don't need any permit at all to carry any gun anywhere. Rifles and shotguns have far more lax regulations. You are making things up as you go.
reading comprehension not your strong suut or do you follow iilka an umu's strategy of ignoring the parts that dont fit? I didn't say all states. The fact is, carrying leagally walking down the street with a firearm is mire tightly regualted than driving IN MOST STATES.

Quote:
2) So by this logic the only ones that should have access to firearms are those that use them for work. Police, security, armed forces. All other uses are unnecessary or purely recreational.
Right over your head. The point was that as soon as you enforce those new regulations on driving, which will save more lives that similiar regs on guns, we can talk about similiar regs on guns. Get it?

Quote:
3) How don't they affect me? I am a gun owner and hunter. But I am a realist as well. What is so wrong about wanting sensible licensing? What is so bad about wanting ALL gun owners to be trained, tested, properly medically evaluated and licensed? It doesn't diminish any rights. There are limits and controls enforced on all "rights".
If you currently own semi-auto firearms with mag capacity over whatever limit would be set then yes, you would be affected. You do? How about when that bolt action deer rifle with the scope is reclassed as a "sniper rifle" (didn't the beltway wingnut use something like that?). You still good with "reasonable" regulations?

Vtwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 11:56 AM
  #99
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,547
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtwin View Post
The founders attempted to write into the constitution the ability of future Americans to do the exact same thing if the government tried to get bit to big for it's britches.

Those old dudes also were giving the citizens the right to carry the same weapons as the best military in the world carried. There was not as large a difference between the farmer's weapon and the soldiers weapon then as there is now.
Agreed. Thereby, the 2nd amendment is obsolete today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtwin View Post
Believing that just because a measly 200 years has passed makes the constitution or any part of it invalid is simplistic at best.
I never said anything of the sort. I said the opinions of the founding fathers are invalid. I've said nothing here about the constitution itself.

I think a lot of the constitution is still valid and relevant today. I don't think the 2nd amendment is, at least as per how the founding fathers saw it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtwin View Post
You could argue that armed citizenry doesn't stand a chance against our modern army but many would point out that if it ever came to that how much of the army is going to follow orders to kill their fellow countryman, family, friends and neighbors.
Sure, you're probably right. Still, if that's the case, then the 2nd amendment is still useless, since the insurgents would have access to all the weapons of the US Army and, better still, actually have people who have been trained extensively to use them, unlike an underground movement of NRA gun nuts who would be useless to those army members who joined the movement.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 12:10 PM
  #100
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,547
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtwin View Post
reading comprehension not your strong suut or do you follow iilka an umu's strategy of ignoring the parts that dont fit? I didn't say all states. The fact is, carrying leagally walking down the street with a firearm is mire tightly regualted than driving IN MOST STATES.
Per Wikipedia, most states are required by law to give permits to anyone who passes a simple test (age, residency, sometimes background checks) and gives their fingerprints for a permit (Only California, DC, Illinois, Maryland, Mass, NJ, NY and parts of RI have more strict regulations on CCWs), and Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, Wyoming and parts of Illinois and Montana don't require a permit at all for reconciled carry.

Since cars require proof of age, residency, a background check and training (a license, if you're confused) to be used legally, need to be registered with the government and can be taken away if used inappropriately (even placing them in a wrong location can result in the loss of the vehicle to the state), your claim that they're more tightly regulated fails completely, even when you try and defend it with the word "most" you used, which means at least 50% of the subject at hand, and usually implies about 75%+. In reality, less than 10% of the states have at least as strict regulations for vehicles as they do for guns. Over 90% have much more lax regulations for guns than for vehicles.

Facts suck when they don't support your unsubstantiated beliefs.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.