Guns

[khadaji]

I should note that in the part of the constitution that maintains arms should not be imposed upon it also uses the world Regulated, and malita..

I found that for all sides to the gun issue the constitution can be fully interpreted to support all sides 100%

makes it a little interesting...

What i would like to actualy here, is ideas and ways to make sure that the so called "Bad guys" can't get guns, while the rest of us "Law abiding" can freely get them..

 

[Wmarden]

Regulated at the time meant functioning. And militia means all citizens(possibly just males) between the ages of roughly 15-60 according to decisions of the united states supreme court. The militia is not the national guard or reserves according to the SCOTUS.

 

[M F]

I should note that in the part of the constitution that maintains arms should not be imposed upon it also uses the world Regulated, and malita..

It does not use the word "regulated" in the context of "regulating the right to keep and bear arms." It is used to explain why "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Because, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

edited for punctuation

 

[Zepp]

Originally posted by Wmarden
I respect those of differing views, good people can disagree.

Hey, at least we agree on something. :asian:

 

[Wmarden]

I know I am opinionated. I get wood when I see an injustice to fight. I mean that it really gets under my skin when something ain't right. And I feel that denying people a means of defending themselves is wrong. Hence my strong opinions on the matter.

The way I see it, criminals ain't about to obey laws, so why punish good decent folk who try to exercise their rights. It is the people who are doing the good or the bad, not the guns. I could, in theory, kill more people without guns than with guns. But it won't happen because I ain't an evil prick. May be a prick somedays, but not evil.

 

[Zepp]

Originally posted by Wmarden
I know I am opinionated. I get wood when I see an injustice to fight. I mean that it really gets under my skin when something ain't right. And I feel that denying people a means of defending themselves is wrong. Hence my strong opinions on the matter.

Your welcome to be as opinionated as you like. As for me, I've stated my opinion, and I don't feel like arguing political issues into perpetuity, especially since neither of us are going to convince the other one.

I will say this: if all gun owners in the US showed the common sense and reasoning ability that most of the pro-gun people on MT have shown, I'd care much less about gun control. :asian:

Ok, one more thing (can't resist): "Regulated" in the wording of the second amendmant also meant properly trained.

(Ok, done now. Really.)

 

[Wmarden]

all my guns are properly trained. They go in the litter box like they are supposed too.

 

[Wmarden]

Originally posted by Zepp


I will say this: if all gun owners in the US showed the common sense and reasoning ability that most of the pro-gun people on MT have shown, I'd care much less about gun control.
(Ok, done now. Really.)

And yet would you beleive I don't belong to the nra because I think they compromise too much. And if you want common sense and reasoning, read Ted Nugent's stuff. He is actually a pretty smart guy. Hey he kept off drug in rock and roll so he has gotta have some brain cells.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Wmarden
And yet would you beleive I don't belong to the nra because I think they compromise too much. And if you want common sense and reasoning, read Ted Nugent's stuff. He is actually a pretty smart guy. Hey he kept off drug in rock and roll so he has gotta have some brain cells.

Ted,Nugent also eat's his road kill and what he hunts. A real interesting story, here he is making millions and all his friends are helping him loose money. He actually had to go out and hunt to feed his wife and kids. He does Rant, and Rave and cen seem a little off the wall, yet, if you get by his approach and listen to what he has to say, you might find somethings of interest and to your liking.


(* I heard this story from Ted Nugent on a radio show and also on a TV show *)

Just an opinion



:asian:

 

[Seig]

I know that in this country, most people that do not have a criminal record and are of legal age can buy firearms. Many states do not prohibit open carry. Most states do require a CCW if you are going to carry concealed. For example, WV is a right to carry state. If I can prove that I have been trained in hand gun use, and have a clean backround, the state has to issue my CCW, for a fee. I carry a firearm on duty and off duty. I have to prove to two different governing bodies that I can use my firearm effectively every year. I have a CCW, which is good in a few different states. I had to prove to Sheriff that I had been properly trained in hand gun use. So, to legally carry a hand gun, I have had to prove several times that I can use it properly and accurately. That is for outside my home. If I want one for inside my home or am going to carry it out in the open, all Ihave to do is legally be able to buy one. Please note that I have stressed legally several times. How many drug dealers walk into a gun store and legally buy a gun? or gang bangers for that matter? it's not the legal guns that are the issue, it's the illegal ones. I really get annoyed by the anti-gun lobby. They seem to have a hard on for taking away legal guns. legal guns are a small percentage of the problem. It is illegal guns that are the real issue. How do you get them out of the hands of criminals? Once you can answer that question, reasonably, you can start solving the problems.

 

[MartialArtist]

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

 

[Zepp]

Originally posted by MartialArtist
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

It's called spin. It's the same thing the author of this article has done. It just goes to show you that you can't take political messages at face value. (Surprise, surprise! )

 

[Mon Mon]

Hey i like guns and they are cool.

 

[OULobo]

The way I look at it, if a guy robs a bank with a gun, why not make it illegal to rob a bank, rather than make it illegal to own a gun. Oh wait that didn't work either! People still rob banks and the people who didn't rob banks before still don't.

I think that this forum is full of confident people. That's a good thing and a definite trait that comes with training, but I think that blinds us to the mentality of why a hand gun was invented. Just like Ronnie VanZant said, "Handgun ain't good for nothin but killin a man." (Is my neck showin a little red. ) The idea of a handgun is one of a great equalizer. The little old lady can use it just as easily as the brute. The idea, whether it was realized or not, was to stop victimization. Its harder to realize the fear of a 85 year old woman who lives alone in a high crime area, when you are a strapping 220lb 25 yr old who is trained to defend himself. (Sorry for any generalizations, but extremes make the best impact).

This post is getting longer than I would have liked, but I think you guys hit a really active subject here in OH (Legislation for legal concealed carry is about to happen). My stance is that the constitution is pretty plain in its ability to state that it was meant to keep protection in the hands of its citizens (It even goes so far as to specifically mention guns). The wording is pretty clear and doesn't require any interpretation, even for the old English of the time. This is because our forefathers saw what can happen in a police state, like England at that time (and to some extent currently), where only the government has the power. In a sense democracy itself is maintained by garunteeing that the average citizen has at least an equal chance of defence of his person.

The scary part is that our society has lost any semblance of patience and has traded it in for speed and efficiency. This breeds rage; road rage, air rage, hospital rage. Guns make this rage lethal. Why do you think there are less violent gun crimes (per capita) in the sticks; because people aren't rushing and raging to get everything right now. This isn't a gun problem, its a mentality problem.

By the way, I feel great about posting on this thread, because it has been so thoughtfully debated on such a freindly level, unlike some other posts I have seen onsite. Great Thread!


Thanks for the oportunity to vent.:soapbox:

 

[928Porsche]

My stance is that the constitution is pretty plain in its ability to state that it was meant to keep protection in the hands of its citizens (It even goes so far as to specifically mention guns).

Where does the Bill of Rights mentions guns? It states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Arms means any weapon be it guns, knives, swords, etc.

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by 928Porsche
My stance is that the constitution is pretty plain in its ability to state that it was meant to keep protection in the hands of its citizens (It even goes so far as to specifically mention guns).

Where does the Bill of Rights mentions guns? It states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Arms means any weapon be it guns, knives, swords, etc.

My fault, I should be more clear. You are correct, the US Constitution says "arms", it is in annotated OH state constitutional case law and in US constitutional case law that the direct subject of shotguns is brought up.

Upon reading these cases the general idea of maintaining a militia is constantly being whittled away one weapon at a time until all we will be able to carry is toothpicks, unless we are getting on a plane, then those are most likely cause for arrest like everything else that is pointy. I just got stopped on a business trip for having a metal pen with my company's name on it. Not that it wouldn't make a nice weapon in a bind. :duel:

 

[MartialArtist]

I'm for some sort of control. Getting your hands on an anti-tank bazooka shouldn't be easy, nor mortars, RPGs, etc.

But handguns, semi-auto rifles, and some types of SMGs are adequate in protecting others.

 

[sweeper]

well I voted good, but that doesn't adaquitly describe my view of guns.

Guns are quite obviously a tool and can't realy be catagorised as good or bad. It's the human that makes the gun and uses it, it is excluseive to our ability to imagine and engineer.

That being said I think it would be a little nicer if there were no guns outside of military hands, but that's virtualy imposable in this nation (I live in the US). We van't stop illegal imigrants rom crossing te boarder and most of them just walk across, we can't stop drugs from comming in, a few months ago we didn't even check in comming freighter ships.. Even if we could seal our boarders we would have to track down and destroy every weapon already in our boarders, and even if we did that how will we stop someone from manufacturing a weapon? It's realy quite unrealistic.. I do think wepaons should be tracked and registered basicly how cars are, not to inhibit the ability to own or operate one but for accountability. I do not see any reason why most people should be limited in the ownership of weapons, in this nation we are granted the right to move around freely pursue virtualy any career we want, and the average citizen is the basic building block of our government (we choose the leadership of our government either directly or indirectly) So why the heck would we be considered not responsable enough when it comes to firearms? Obviously there have to be some limits and also obviously it is an imperfect deffence against malevolant people wielding firearms but in most cases there is no reason to remove them from the hands of the honest.

As to the second ammendment, I think it's out of date.. An armed populace can not garuntee freedom. Excelent example being Iraq. Lots of people were and are armed there.. But they couldn't overthrow an opressive state. In todays world virtualy any nation could passify it's populace, armed or not because of the discrepency in power between military weapons and personal weapons. Guns wouldn't make a large diffrence if any diffrence.

 

[Ender]

Originally posted by Wmarden
Guns are neither good nor bad, they are inanimate objects. Much like a knife is neither good nor bad. It depends on the intent and user. I use a knife every day to do my job, so in that it is good. Terrorists used very similar kives in order to facilitate the murder of 3000 human beings.

I use a gun to develop the skills needed to save a life. Either my own or others. In that it is good. However there are some people who misuse them.

Like drunk drivers can misuse automobiles to produce a large number of fatalities. Yet automobiles are often used to transport people to the hospital or to their daily chores.

It is all in intent.

Very good. I agree for the most part. It's too bad we need them at all. But thats the world we live in. My wife owns a gun, I don't. My dad was a machine gunner in the Korean conflict and told us of stories where all he did was shoot and kill man after man after man. He never wanted to kill another as long as he lived so he didn't own a gun when he left the service. He kind of instilled that in me. But I would never say owning or not owning a gun is right or wrong. at least we have a choice.

 

[Cryozombie]

I have heard in the past the argument that the founding fathers gave no thought to the "future of arms" when they wrote about the right to keep and bear arms... That may or may not be true, but as far as I am concerned, they clearly addressed the issue...

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "

Note where it said "Our Posterity" They clearly meant for this document to be followed beyond their passing... When they said "provide for the common defense" (common being you or I) AND provided for us to "Keep and Bear Arms" I believe they meant for the COMMON MAN (or woman) to have access to the neccssary arms to "provide for the common defense", meaning we have access to weapons equal or greater than our enemies... be that internally (criminals, rebels or malcontents) or a foriegn aggressor.

"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."

Now, I cannot SPEAK 100% on this, because I have never seen the original, but it was and is my understanding that This Amendment is 2 separate sentances. 1 about a militia being neccessary, and One about bearing arms. I would say, if that were true, the period between the sentances makes them mutualy exclusive...

But again, dont quote me on the second one.