ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
[video]http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81959216/[/video]
For my buddy John Happy Halloween
For my buddy John Happy Halloween
Gun banning and fast and furious...
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
Argument from personal incredulity? Ok, it might amaze you, BUT having known some less understanding people, I have seen that it is immensely easy to get a weapon through non-legal channels.
The thing is, whether it amazes you or not, you haven't actually shot down the logic. Bans have a tumultuous history in America. Illegal drugs are banned, and you can get them with ease. Prostitution is banned, and you can get that with ease. Cuban cigars are banned, and you can get them with ease. Alcohol used to be banned, and yes, you could get that with ease too.
Similarly, a ban on assault weapons doesn't make it hard for someone with money to get. The only people affected by a ban are those who abide by it.
So, continue with the personal incredulity, or actually address the argument?
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
John and Steve, we have, in my opinion, enough controls on law abiding citizens' rights to bear arms in this country-in fact, we probably have too many. Of course, we really have to look to the history of why the Founders' said we had that right, and delineated it in our Bill of Rights as one that the Federal Government cannot infringe.
In his dissent of the Dec 10, 2010 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, and on December 12, 2010, on Fox News Sunday, Justice Stephen Breyer said the Founding Fathers never intended for guns to go unregulated. His reasoning was that James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, actually didn't want the 2nd Amendment, and he further claimed most historians would stand with him on this.
Let me start by saying that Breyer is right, Madison didn't want the 2nd Amendment. But what he fails to mention is that Madison also didn't want the 1st, 3rd, 4th, or any of the other the first 10 amendments. He didn't want a Bill of Rights. Thus, using Breyer's logic, he must believe the Founding Fathers wanted to regulate speech and religion, require self-incrimination, etc. Perhaps in the future he's going to use this argument to rule in favor of censorship, self-incrimination, state-sponsored religion, etc.
The reason Madison didn't want a Bill of Rights was that he didn't think it belonged in the Constitution. He and many of the other Founders held that since there are no powers in the Constitution that grant the federal government the power to take away our rights, it was unneeded. (See Article I, Section 8 to see what powers were being granted to the United States.) Besides, the state constitutions almost all contained their own protections. So, including the amendments was not only a waste of time, it also provided the illusion that they weren't Natural or God-given rights; they were the gift of the federal government to bend, ignore, or abrogate as it wished.
However, what Breyer specifically said was that neither Madison nor the other Founders wanted the 2nd Amendment and that Madison only included it to appease the other Founders who did want it.
Wait minute. Others Founders wanted it? In one breath he said the Founders didn't want it, in the next he's willing to contradict himself.
If it must be known, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and many other Founders insisted on the 2nd. More importantly, he fails to mention that Madison, one of the authors of what we now call the Federalist Papers, advocated the private ownership of guns by Americans in numbers 46 and 54, both of which predate the Bill of Rights. So it is odd that Breyer would claim Madison was against the 2nd, and that most historians would stand with him on this, when it is so easily demonstrated his claim is false. Perhaps Breyer should read works of more competent historians or study some history himself.
Another claim of Breyer's was that Madison only agreed to the 2nd Amendment so he could get the Constitution ratified, but the Constitution, written in 1787, was already ratified by June 21, 1788 — three and a half years before the Bill of Rights, where the 2nd can be found, was adopted. So, the 2nd Amendment could have been dispensed with had the Founders so wished, but there are no records showing that any one of them ever attempted to do so.
The last thing I want to point out (and I do this not only for Justice Breyer, but for others who claim that the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the states to have militias and not an individual's right to bear arms), is that the Founders were very careful to distinguish between the people, the states, and the United States. The people are mentioned twice in the original Constitution, the states 26 times, and the United States 55 times. More telling, the people are mentioned five times in the Bill of Rights, the states three times, and the United States twice, and all three are mentioned together in the 10th Amendment. That Amendment doesn't even make sense if the Founders weren't carefully distinguishing among the people, the states, and the federal government.
So, the wording of the 2nd Amendment is clear:
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.
We the people have the right to keep and bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe upon this right. And, since the passing of the 14th Amendment, the states cannot infringe on any of our rights, either.
If one looks to the Dred Scott case, the full wording of it denied blacks full rights because it "would give to persons of the negro race ... the full liberty ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went.". In other words, the Supreme Court, in 1857, said that free men have the right to keep and bear arms. I have a hard time believing that Justice Breyer, even following the liberal agenda towards guns, and with his interprative style of jurisprudence, could make statements to the effect that the Founders wanted this right regulated-I further find it difficult to tolerate the folly of American citizens who say as much......
In his dissent of the Dec 10, 2010 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, and on December 12, 2010, on Fox News Sunday, Justice Stephen Breyer said the Founding Fathers never intended for guns to go unregulated. His reasoning was that James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, actually didn't want the 2nd Amendment, and he further claimed most historians would stand with him on this.
Let me start by saying that Breyer is right, Madison didn't want the 2nd Amendment. But what he fails to mention is that Madison also didn't want the 1st, 3rd, 4th, or any of the other the first 10 amendments. He didn't want a Bill of Rights. Thus, using Breyer's logic, he must believe the Founding Fathers wanted to regulate speech and religion, require self-incrimination, etc. Perhaps in the future he's going to use this argument to rule in favor of censorship, self-incrimination, state-sponsored religion, etc.
The reason Madison didn't want a Bill of Rights was that he didn't think it belonged in the Constitution. He and many of the other Founders held that since there are no powers in the Constitution that grant the federal government the power to take away our rights, it was unneeded. (See Article I, Section 8 to see what powers were being granted to the United States.) Besides, the state constitutions almost all contained their own protections. So, including the amendments was not only a waste of time, it also provided the illusion that they weren't Natural or God-given rights; they were the gift of the federal government to bend, ignore, or abrogate as it wished.
However, what Breyer specifically said was that neither Madison nor the other Founders wanted the 2nd Amendment and that Madison only included it to appease the other Founders who did want it.
Wait minute. Others Founders wanted it? In one breath he said the Founders didn't want it, in the next he's willing to contradict himself.
If it must be known, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and many other Founders insisted on the 2nd. More importantly, he fails to mention that Madison, one of the authors of what we now call the Federalist Papers, advocated the private ownership of guns by Americans in numbers 46 and 54, both of which predate the Bill of Rights. So it is odd that Breyer would claim Madison was against the 2nd, and that most historians would stand with him on this, when it is so easily demonstrated his claim is false. Perhaps Breyer should read works of more competent historians or study some history himself.
Another claim of Breyer's was that Madison only agreed to the 2nd Amendment so he could get the Constitution ratified, but the Constitution, written in 1787, was already ratified by June 21, 1788 — three and a half years before the Bill of Rights, where the 2nd can be found, was adopted. So, the 2nd Amendment could have been dispensed with had the Founders so wished, but there are no records showing that any one of them ever attempted to do so.
The last thing I want to point out (and I do this not only for Justice Breyer, but for others who claim that the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the states to have militias and not an individual's right to bear arms), is that the Founders were very careful to distinguish between the people, the states, and the United States. The people are mentioned twice in the original Constitution, the states 26 times, and the United States 55 times. More telling, the people are mentioned five times in the Bill of Rights, the states three times, and the United States twice, and all three are mentioned together in the 10th Amendment. That Amendment doesn't even make sense if the Founders weren't carefully distinguishing among the people, the states, and the federal government.
So, the wording of the 2nd Amendment is clear:
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.
We the people have the right to keep and bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe upon this right. And, since the passing of the 14th Amendment, the states cannot infringe on any of our rights, either.
If one looks to the Dred Scott case, the full wording of it denied blacks full rights because it "would give to persons of the negro race ... the full liberty ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went.". In other words, the Supreme Court, in 1857, said that free men have the right to keep and bear arms. I have a hard time believing that Justice Breyer, even following the liberal agenda towards guns, and with his interprative style of jurisprudence, could make statements to the effect that the Founders wanted this right regulated-I further find it difficult to tolerate the folly of American citizens who say as much......
Steve
Mostly Harmless
It's also important to context to note that the founding fathers almost universally distrusted and denounced the creation of a standing army. The well-regulated militia was a safeguard against tyranny, both from within and without.
In other words, I agree with the spirit of the 2nd amendment, but we live in times that differ fundamentally from the context in which the 2nd amendment was drafted.
As always, I appreciate the food for thought.
In other words, I agree with the spirit of the 2nd amendment, but we live in times that differ fundamentally from the context in which the 2nd amendment was drafted.
As always, I appreciate the food for thought.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
It still doesn't. It never did. "Assault rifles," are, as I said, full-auto capable rifles-not shotguns. Assault weapons are something completely different, that didn't exist until 1994-the classification, such as it is, encompasses rifles, pistols, and shotguns, on mostly cosmetic grounds.
Sawed-off and short shotguns (barrel length under 18") have been specially classified since 1934. While one can own them and other firearms under the classification-mostly as a collector, for example-their possession or use, or modifying weapons to fit the classifications, and, in some instances, even owning parts that facilitate such modifications, like the trigger groups of certain selective fire rifles that have semi-auto models, is a violation of federal law without the proper paper work, and one that carries pretty sever penalties.
So, unless you're like 92 years old, sawed off shotguns have been largely illegal for most of your shooting life, and you were breaking the law.
JohnEdward
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 740
- Reaction score
- 24
When I was explaining my views, had nothing to do with this at all. I wasn't directly speak about the ban or any ban directly or in detail. It was all in relation of the perspective the article took. Though the entire discourse, I found it interesting how those who put up counter views and arguments threw in everything and the kitchen sink, projected all sorts of non-sense, preposterousness tactics to prove me wrong- I simply support the ban (be in place or not) associated to the idea that I am opposed to having it socially acceptable for everyone to have an AK patterned weapon readily available to them to own. I say horse pucky. A concern I laid out so many times, it's now patented. As pro-gun, I am feel most people have lost their respect and fear of such a weapon.
I see I was being called Anti-American, and all sorts of other irrationally and emotionally nonsense thrown at me, and that I was accused of. All because I support the view of respect, common sense and fear for such a weapon, which in part means don't arm the societal nut jobs, the idiots, criminals and extremists with what they want, easy access to assault weapons. Evidently that touched a nerve with some.
I noticed the temperament of some in the discussion that result of the unreasonable and irrelevant reactions and replies I got. The extremism of some replies where was so off-based, pronounced and intense, it lead me to caution, to think these are the people who want to have such a gun? I question for what purpose they want such unrestricted availability to high powered assault weapons? I said guns are dangerous and don't belong in the hands of some people, people who are not rational, don't have a brain, irresponsible etc. what is wrong with keeping guns out of their hand? Nothing unless, someone fits the bill who wants that type of gun.
That article's was really a joke in logic and persuasion to say the least. I will live with a ban on assault (no matter how effective or not) in the effort to subside any change in social attitude that supports a free for all, unregulated, unrestricted access to AK patterned assault weapons. A view I feel is dangerous and irresponsible demonstrated by the author of the article and by some here. That is what I was discussing.
Now if anyone would like some good Chicken soup, I got a recipe.
Last edited:
If it is a dilettantish question please forgive me and but can I ask my American friends, why do you need a firearm (or the ability to legally procure one)?
Again, if this is a stupid question, I beg your forgiveness. I live in London. There is a lot of crime here like anywhere. There is also a lot of armed crime, drug crime, gang crime etc etc. I might like to own a pistol and but it is not legal here.
My question is how would the citizens of the USA be worse off if firearms were rationed on a stricter licensed basis (farmers and herdsmen and those with a more "genuine" need etc.) rather than being available to all? Thank you. Jenna
Again, if this is a stupid question, I beg your forgiveness. I live in London. There is a lot of crime here like anywhere. There is also a lot of armed crime, drug crime, gang crime etc etc. I might like to own a pistol and but it is not legal here.
My question is how would the citizens of the USA be worse off if firearms were rationed on a stricter licensed basis (farmers and herdsmen and those with a more "genuine" need etc.) rather than being available to all? Thank you. Jenna
If you look at the words of many of the Founders, we would be worse off because it would be more difficult to overthrow the government should that become necessary. They were revolutionaries after all.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
I'll answer the question straight up, without asking any counter ones:
TO KILL STUFF.
Seriously, target shooting is fun, and there are several sports built around it, and that's enough. I also hunt, as in "kill stuff," like elk, feral hog and bison-things that actually require a bit of serious firepower-or real accuracy and stalking ability with a bow, depending on which hunt I've drawn.
We also live and play in an area where we can encounter bears or mountain lions-while I'd really hate to shoot a bear, I'd hate being mauled by one even more. We also had livestock at one time, and will again, and we need firearms against predators like coyotes and said bears and lions.
THen, we have several firearms ready in the home, against home invasion-something that takes place quite a bit more than people would like to believe. Lastly, though, there's usually a pistol close by,if not on our persons, especially in Albuquerque or Denver, as an edge against two-legged urban predators-I have one within reach in the car, or we're carrying, unless we're going somewhere where alcohol is served, or are planning on indulging ourselves......
Well, if I simply wanted to carry one against two-legged urban predators, and I couldn't, I'd be worse off.
First and foremost, though-and, as unlikely as it is-what Lamont said.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #130
Well, there are many more eloquent defenders of the right to keep and bear arms, but I will add my two cents. The main reason that we need a firearm or any weapons that appear in the future, is personal protection, from other citizens who may have criminal intent, and from the government who might try to impose itself on us outside of the constitutional provisions. Also, long term, we protect the right for ourselves, now, and for future Americans who aren't born yet. As I said in an earlier post on this thread, the right to keep weapons is a building block of a free people. Look around the world and find all the countries that have committed mass murder against their citizens or the citizen's of other countries, and you will see people who were prevented from having their own weapons. That is at the heart of the argument for keeping and bearing weapons, whatever their nature may be, now and in the future, personal protection.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
Actually Your argument was :
"Because I don't want an AK weapon in the hands of every red neck bubba, terrorist or nut case Armageddon survivalist or wacko with a hair trigger bent on society getting their hands on one on American soil legally."
When given the FACTS that these weapons are used in under 1% of all gun crimes you refuse to comment on it and ignore it because it goes against your argument. When Asked WHY you pick THESE guns you replied:
"Do we need more nuts and criminal to have greater access to high powered automatic weapons like candy? I don't"
Again ignoring that these weapons are only used by criminals in 1/5 of 1% of gun crimes and that the .38 special revolver is the #1 used gun by criminals.
Then you changed your argument to protecting Police Officers ignoring the fact more officers are kill by gun fire are shot by their own guns and only an extreamly small % were killed with an assault weapon.
Then you changed you argument to you dont want unrestricted availability to guns when NOBODY said anyhting about unrestriceted. Nobody agrees with felons and crazy people having guns.
Then you said People should have to EARN the rights given to them by the constitution when you said:
" I am a firm believer before that right is granted you have to demonstrate you are worthy of that right, and adhere to and understand the responsible of that right. Otherwise you lose that right"
Which goes against everything in our constitution which our laws are limited by.
Then you had theis GEM of a line:
"You live in a society, rights are granted by the freakin Govt"
Our rights are not Granted but the GOVT according to the constitution our rights were granted by GOD and WE THE PEOPLE limit the Govt power not the other way around.
And then when all your argument were shot down you moved on to look at Mexico we need to ban our guns for the Mexicans.
then you were just mad everyone does not agree with you:
"It boggles my mind and creates concern for me when people disagree with what I said"
Then you went back to false information:
"I am concern with high powered weaponry being used predominately as the gun of choice by gangs and drug cartels here and abroad."
I lie that was already shown to be false
Then you went back to Mexico:
"You might want to share that with the Mexican police."
Then you lost me with this one:
"Here now let's bring my mother and how well she throws cow patties"
Then you gave up and started talking about how you modified guns as a kid.
That pretty much summed up your flawed arguments.
JohnEdward
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 740
- Reaction score
- 24
It is a cultural thing, the west was won with a Winchester. Unlike, the English, who conquered much of the world with a sword. We are fanatical when it comes to fire arms, as well as having a healthy firearms industry, that has some historic ties like Winchester. For us a gun is symbolic as the sword is in other parts of the world. Because guns can be improved upon, we never laid our love affair or the symbol of power to rest.
Allot of people will reference our 2nd Amendment, and they do it for political and other reasons. But it really isn't the reason why we love guns today. It comes from the Old West. "Where the gun was the only law." And the gun became apart of daily Western life and culture. Then there was the big game/ hunting movement romanticized by Roosevelt and Hemingway, etc. holding high gun culture. Then the romanticism of Hollywood with guns from westerns to ganger, then to movies of today. Then guns play to people insecurities and fantasies, and unfortunately as a tool to their criminal enterprise. I just skimmed over the reason. There is more too it. But it gives you an idea. Not everyone is so gung ho about guns. You have broad spectrum of opinions why we need to procure firearms. Some feel it has it place in self defense. Some don't. In terms of crime. It is hard to pin point the reason why. Some say it is driven by the firearms industry, some say it is our "right." There are allot of possible reasons. So, it is easier to say we are a gun culture. In my opinion not a very responsible one at that.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
John Edward, while you're kind of right about a few things, so much of gthis post is wrong I just .....
The West was stolen. Look at how you spell the name of your home state. I'm not even going to get into the Alamo...:lfao:
It is a cultural thing, though.
Because it's not just a symbol of power-in our culture, it's a symbol of freedom.
That Old Wet is largely a myth, and guns came before that myth, I'm afraid. Guns largely became a bigger part of our culture because of the Civil War-returning servicemen on both sides often kept their arms, and the number of households-especially urban households-with arms increased. It was this increase that led to the founding of the NRA, principally as an organ of firearms education.
As for the Founders,they kind of loved guns, John:
It's worth noting that I began with Jefferson, and ended with Hamilton, two men whose mutual dislike and disagreements history gives us ample evidence of, yet on this matter they were in complete agreement.
As for the rest of your post:
pancake bunny. :lfao:
The West was stolen. Look at how you spell the name of your home state. I'm not even going to get into the Alamo...:lfao:
It is a cultural thing, though.
Because it's not just a symbol of power-in our culture, it's a symbol of freedom.
That Old Wet is largely a myth, and guns came before that myth, I'm afraid. Guns largely became a bigger part of our culture because of the Civil War-returning servicemen on both sides often kept their arms, and the number of households-especially urban households-with arms increased. It was this increase that led to the founding of the NRA, principally as an organ of firearms education.
As for the Founders,they kind of loved guns, John:
It's worth noting that I began with Jefferson, and ended with Hamilton, two men whose mutual dislike and disagreements history gives us ample evidence of, yet on this matter they were in complete agreement.
As for the rest of your post:
pancake bunny.
:lfao:
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
you will find that is a recurring theme with him, last week, he insulted all nurses, then backpeddled to claim he was just suing that as a figure of speech. Trust me, he is a prime candidate for the iggy list, you wont miss out on much of anything.
JohnEdward
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 740
- Reaction score
- 24
Now, now, TF let's play nice.
JohnEdward
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 740
- Reaction score
- 24
John Edward, while you're kind of right about a few things, so much of gthis post is wrong I just .....
The West was stolen. Look at how you spell the name of your home state. I'm not even going to get into the Alamo...:lfao:
It is a cultural thing, though.
Because it's not just a symbol of power-in our culture, it's a symbol of freedom.
That Old Wet is largely a myth, and guns came before that myth, I'm afraid. Guns largely became a bigger part of our culture because of the Civil War-returning servicemen on both sides often kept their arms, and the number of households-especially urban households-with arms increased. It was this increase that led to the founding of the NRA, principally as an organ of firearms education.
As for the Founders,they kind of loved guns, John:
It's worth noting that I began with Jefferson, and ended with Hamilton, two men whose mutual dislike and disagreements history gives us ample evidence of, yet on this matter they were in complete agreement.
As for the rest of your post:
[/INDENT]pancake bunny.
I am really glad you don't teach Texas history in Texas. :lol: Isn't that the crux of history, it is so subjective. I don't think anyone really knows, when we fell in love with guns. I know America wasn't the only country with muskets, and flint locks and they don't have the same love affair as we do. But we did develop better guns that where revolutionary like the Winchester. That really had an impact on our culture.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
Well, I suppose that Daniel Boone, was exploring "the Old West," when he forged the trail through the Cumberland Gap to Kentucky, back in 1767-Kentucky was, after all, west of the colonies, but I don't think that's what you meant. Oddly enough, Boone was equipped with and famous for his use of a gun-from then and through the Revolutionary War.
Oh, and among the many things I have done, one of them was teach high school history
I am really glad all your arguments are so weak and easily rebutted.
Oh,we edited. Ok.
The martyrs of the Alamo were traitorous rebels against the government of Mexico: they'd sworn allegiance to the government, and converted to Catholicism, becoming Mexican citizens. History is written by the winners-not the Mexicans, and not the Indians, from whom all the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific was stolen.
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
While I disagree with the term love affair, we have endorsed guns all the way back to the revolution. Read the Federalist papers, the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, or a number of other founders or framers.
This reminds me of Bush declaring victory over Iraq. Or Saddam Hussein declaring victory over America.
