|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 26, 2013 0:28:16 GMT
The 2nd Amendment was a product of it's time and could have been better written in addressing the actual Right of the People being protected. Had it been properly worded it would have been something like this...
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms by the People to Defend Against Acts of Aggression shall not be infringed.
At the time of the creation of the 2nd Amendment the primary concern from a national standpoint was to defend against acts of aggression by government but the actual Inalienable Right of the Person is the Right of Self-Defense Against Acts of Aggression regardless of whether its by government or other persons.
|
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Sept 26, 2013 7:19:24 GMT
whats the point in actually needing to own a gun or rifle..
in the USa everyone has one cause they are living in fear...
they want more guns cause more guns are in the hands of nut jobs...so they need guns...
take all the guns away and country would be less paranoid..
it's all fear based 1984 esque lifestyle....
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 26, 2013 8:42:54 GMT
whats the point in actually needing to own a gun or rifle.. in the USa everyone has one cause they are living in fear... they want more guns cause more guns are in the hands of nut jobs...so they need guns... take all the guns away and country would be less paranoid.. it's all fear based 1984 esque lifestyle....
A person cannot be charged with a crime when at the time they committed the act it was legal. In effect a person that legally purchased and owns a firearm cannot be charged in a criminal complaint for owning that firearm. This is why when the law was passed to "ban" fully automatic firearms in the 1934(?) that all Thompson submachine guns that had been legally sold were not confiscated. The law did impose very specific regulatory requirements on the ownership of fully automatic firearms in the United States but never actually banned the possession which would have been unconstitutional.
It can be noted that although we allow private ownership of fully automatic firearms I'm unaware of a single case of murder being committed by a private person using a fully automatic firearm in the last 50 years in the United States. If "fully automatic firearms don't kill people" then the argument that "semiautomatic firearms kill people" seems to lack any real foundation.
|
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Sept 26, 2013 8:50:59 GMT
The 2nd Amendment was a product of it's time and could have been better written in addressing the actual Right of the People being protected. Had it been properly worded it would have been something like this... The Right to Keep and Bear Arms by the People to Defend Against Acts of Aggression shall not be infringed. That all depends on whether that is actually what they meant at the time when they were writing it. Perhaps they actually meant what they said, not what they didn't say, or what they were later interpreted by many to have meant. At the time of the creation of the 2nd Amendment the primary concern from a national standpoint was to defend against acts of aggression by government but the actual Inalienable Right of the Person is the Right of Self-Defense Against Acts of Aggression regardless of whether its by government or other persons. But that clearly isn't what they thought, otherwise that's what they would have written. What they wrote is that the people have the right to hold arms in their possession in case militia action is required to protect the public from the actions of oppressive government and other agencies. They didn't write that everybody should have the right to have and use guns against any act (or perceived act, or feared act) of aggression against them as individuals or their property. Since they generally wrote very well worded and cleverly constructed documents that made their meaning pretty clear, the only conclusion that I think it is really possible to reach logically is that they know what they were saying, and were saying what they meant. The issue of 'personal crime' and 'personal and property protection' would obviously have existed at the time, but they chose not to include those issues in the Second Amendment. Clearly, then, that was NOT what the Second Amendment was about, nor what it was intended for - the use of it to justify that is a later misinterpretation. Their mistake was in underestimating the capacity of people to apply something they had said to a different case that it was never intended to apply to simply on the basis that it didn't explicitly state that it didn't apply to it, and in order to support their own personal agendas and opinions that had never been part of the plan for the authors at all. The Second Amendment says that the government does not have the right to prevent the population from forming militias for public protection, and maintaining the means to enable them to do so. That is what it means. Any other implications that are drawn from it are merely a misinterpretation by others for their own purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 26, 2013 9:00:19 GMT
We deviate from the point of this thread though. Pragmatic regulations related to firearms does need to be addressed but that regulation is far from being the most important thing for Americans. We're watching as the Middle Class is slowing transitioning into poverty. The American Dream has been all but lost. Our tax codes remain unfair and punish working Americans while also negatively impacting the US economy. We continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the US military but don't collect enough in tax revenues to pay for it. We continue to experience denial of equality of opportunity for minorities and women. We continue to see legislation that will deny the Right to Vote for millions of poor American citizens. We have a federal government that is spying on our every action over the internet and our phone calls. We have a federal government that is literally committing murder by authorizing extrajudicial executions. We continue to hold people that have committed no crimes as prisoners based upon their religious and/or political beliefs.
We have problems, serious problems, all of which are far more important than firearms regulation. That is the real point of this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Sept 26, 2013 9:11:17 GMT
The estimated 300 million firearms legally sold cannot be confiscated from the People of the United States. No, they can't. They can, however, be placed under law into secure locked cabinets in people's homes unless they are required for specific 'militia' action for public protection (or for hunting or sporting purposes), for example, and they can also have the ammunition available to them limited, and all kinds of other relatively small things that could make a big practical difference. The Constitution in no way prevents any of that, and any claim that it does is entirely spurious and illogical - it involves suggesting that the authors of the Second Amendment means something entirely different from what they actually said. What could be done is something like this - Gun owners who want a gun in their home in case of militia action requirements need no licence or anything, but must keep them in a secure, locked, metal cabinet which must be certified as such if they want to go out and buy a new weapon. Ammunition must be under a certain amount of rounds (for each gun and in total), and held in a separate secure cabinet elsewhere in the house. Only the main householder and their spouse may not the location of the keys for these cabinets. They must only be brought out for cleaning and maintenance, and for practise either on the property itself or at licensed public ranges. Those who want guns for purposes other than the militia requirements specified by the second amendment (hunting, sporting, pest control, etc.), and therefore want to take them away from the home and use them in other places, and perhaps hold somewhat larger amounts of ammunition for hunting trips and so on, and require certain specific types of higher powered weapons, would have to apply for a licence to allow them to do that. That would involve deeper background checking, stricter storage conditions, regular police inspections of storage, registration of their guns, and so on. Nobody is allowed to carry concealed or concealable weapons in public places unless they are licences specifically for that - i.e. are members of a local militia group involved in an active and current exercise, are police officers, are on their way to use them for specific hunting purposes, and so on. Non-licence holders can only take any firearm into a public place carried in an appropriate container, unloaded, and must be able to show that they are taking them for maintenance or to a pre-booked session at a public range for practice. There is nothing in the constitution that suggests that any of that shouldn't be done. It doesn't prevent any of the militia purposes of the Second Amendment at all, and also doesn't prevent 'legitimate' hunting and sporting users from going about their business. |
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Sept 26, 2013 9:12:32 GMT
We have problems, serious problems, all of which are far more important than firearms regulation. That is the real point of this thread.
Yes and no. Firearms are a pretty important issue to those people who have lost family members because of the lack of sensible control and regulation of them, their storage and their use. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 26, 2013 9:16:50 GMT
The 2nd Amendment was a product of it's time and could have been better written in addressing the actual Right of the People being protected. Had it been properly worded it would have been something like this... The Right to Keep and Bear Arms by the People to Defend Against Acts of Aggression shall not be infringed. That all depends on whether that is actually what they meant at the time when they were writing it. Perhaps they actually meant what they said, not what they didn't say, or what they were later interpreted by many to have meant.
We can find even greater precedent for what they meant in the Declaration of Independence.
Our very nation was founded upon the belief in the Inalienable Rights of the Person with the sole expressed reason for government to even exist being to protect those Rights. Government was not created to protect us from government but instead it was created to protect us from the violations of our Inalienable Rights by other Persons.
Every person has an Inalienable Right of Defense Against Acts of Aggression by others. Even if the 2nd Amendment did not exist this Right of the Person is protected by the 9th Amendment to the United States Constitution. People have a Right to Defend themselves and in 1785 the personal firearm was the best means for defending oneself against acts of aggression and it remains the best means for defending oneself today. Nothing has changed that simple fact.
With this in mind I'd challenge anyone to provide a "weapon" that is better suited to self-defense than a firearm. No "non-lethal" weapon has been invented today that can provide the same level protection afforded by a firearm.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 26, 2013 9:27:31 GMT
The estimated 300 million firearms legally sold cannot be confiscated from the People of the United States. No, they can't. They can, however, be placed under law into secure locked cabinets in people's homes unless they are required for specific 'militia' action for public protection (or for hunting or sporting purposes), for example, and they can also have the ammunition available to them limited, and all kinds of other relatively small things that could make a big practical difference. The Constitution in no way prevents any of that, and any claim that it does is entirely spurious and illogical - it involves suggesting that the authors of the Second Amendment means something entirely different from what they actually said.
If I'm the victim of an armed home invasion I have a Right to Defend Myself against it. A firearm locked in a gun safe will not provide me with any means of protecting myself or my family from being brutally attacked and murdered. Yes, I know that the probability of even being a victim of a home invasion of any kind when I'm there is only about 0.4% but the threat still exists so I keep a loaded 12ga shotgun next to my bed because being in bed is where I'm most venerable. If I were to awaken during the night hearing someone coming down the hall I can grab that shotgun, chamber a round, and be prepared to defend myself in about three seconds without leaving my bed.
The odds against this happening are great but I refuse to simply be a victim. No other weapon on Earth provides me with the potential protections that my 12 ga shotgun provides. It is even my hope that in just chambering a round that the home intruder would simply leave avoiding any confrontation but if the confrontation occurs I'm as prepared as I can possibly be.
And I have an Inalienable Right of Self-Defense that cannot and should not be violated by my government.
|
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Sept 26, 2013 9:29:35 GMT
That all depends on whether that is actually what they meant at the time when they were writing it. Perhaps they actually meant what they said, not what they didn't say, or what they were later interpreted by many to have meant. Exactly - part of a community effort (no matter how small) to deal with a clear and present danger, not an individual having a gun at hand and at the ready all the time 'just in case'. That's a huge difference. With this in mind I'd challenge anyone to provide a "weapon" that is better suited to self-defense than a firearm. No "non-lethal" weapon has been invented today that can provide the same level protection afforded by a firearm. Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean that that level of 'protection' is actually necessary at all. Nowhere does it suggest that the Inalienable Rights of a Person include having a gun actually to hand and at the ready at all times just in case it might ever be needed to protect themselves of their property. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 26, 2013 12:06:59 GMT
There is substantial evidence that this is exactly what they meant. For example if we look at just the term "militia" the sole purpose of the "militia" wasn't limited to simply revolution or defense of the nation but instead related to the defense of the community from any threat. A "militia" in a small community could have been comprised of very few men and could actually be defined as two or more men in the community at the time. Exactly - part of a community effort (no matter how small) to deal with a clear and present danger, not an individual having a gun at hand and at the ready all the time 'just in case'. That's a huge difference. With this in mind I'd challenge anyone to provide a "weapon" that is better suited to self-defense than a firearm. No "non-lethal" weapon has been invented today that can provide the same level protection afforded by a firearm. Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean that that level of 'protection' is actually necessary at all. Nowhere does it suggest that the Inalienable Rights of a Person include having a gun actually to hand and at the ready at all times just in case it might ever be needed to protect themselves of their property.
We must assume that the person willing to attack me is "armed with a firearm" and the only weapons that "levels the playing field" is if I have a firearm. Yes, I could use a crossbow which is also a lethal weapon but the odds are that I'm still going to end up dead if I do. I can try a Taser but they don't stop a determined person and I'm probably going to end up dead. There isn't any other lethal or nonlethal weapons that affords the protection of a firearm that I might need immediately to defend myself or my family.
When that weapons is invented then I'll be willing to put down my firearms but until then I have an Inalienable Right to Defend myself and I will use the best weapon available for that purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Sept 26, 2013 14:43:09 GMT
True Shiva! And another important fact is this: It is ONLY law-abiding citizens who would abide by any new laws anyways. The bad buys doing these awful things will certainly NOT do so. They don't abide by the current gun laws!! So, one is not even solving or addressing the problem by making even more gun laws.
It would be like saying that because there have been way too many fatal car accidents happening because someone was intoxicated....that we should ban the sales of all alcohol. Stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by blarset on Sept 26, 2013 15:16:47 GMT
Obama strikes me as an idealogue. Completely void of any originalality an sheepishly towing the liberal progressive agenda of the party. He is their poster boy for extreemism after all he presided over the passing of their Century Legislation- Nationalised health Care. He's just follwing the party line it doesnt take alot of smarts to show up and push another fellows agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Sept 26, 2013 17:01:52 GMT
A clear and present danger to the person can materialize in a matter of seconds. Once again if an armed intruder kicks in my front door I have a Right of Self-Defense against this Act of Aggression. I can't call "Time Out" while I unlock my gun safe and secure a firearm to defend myself. Until I have "gun in hand" I'm nothing but a helpless victim and I REFUSE TO BE WILLING A VICTIM. It is exactly this kind of uncompromising attitude towards a problem that in reality is nothing more than a minuscule chance of potential danger that dooms the population of the USA to a perpetual state of deep fear and paranoia that is so easily manipulate and controlled by those in the government and media machine that seek to do so for their own purposes. It is also, of course, the very same attitude that dooms the USA to being the leader of the civilised world when it comes to unnecessary deaths by shooting. Until the people of the USA recognise the simple reality that the realistic chances of someone with a gun actually attacking them in their own homes is actually minute, there is no hope - the infinite argument of 'yes, but what if' has won over logic and reality. |
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Sept 26, 2013 17:46:29 GMT
We deviate from the point of this thread though. Pragmatic regulations related to firearms does need to be addressed but that regulation is far from being the most important thing for Americans. Our tax codes remain unfair and punish working Americans while also negatively impacting the US economy. We continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the US military but don't collect enough in tax revenues to pay for it. We continue to experience denial of equality of opportunity for minorities and women. We continue to see legislation that will deny the Right to Vote for millions of poor American citizens. We have a federal government that is spying on our every action over the internet and our phone calls. We have a federal government that is literally committing murder by authorizing extrajudicial executions. We continue to hold people that have committed no crimes as prisoners based upon their religious and/or political beliefs.
We have problems, serious problems, all of which are far more important than firearms regulation. That is the real point of this thread.
do you know why this transition has taken place? why would such a thing happen? The lower classes are of no use to the modern day aristocracy. The children are of no need to be used as canon fodder. smart weapons and modern military can have wars where losses in the single digit to overthrow a government. first Iraq war 124 of our guys dead...121 from friendly fire. secound Iraw war 3 people dead , actually it was one two were recovered. you are of no value if you are lower class. the great train wreck of 2008 where the world economy plunged into the abyss...huge test that was not halted...what came of that ..knowledge that there are enough consumers to keep the economy alive. the poor suffered and are suffering horribly...no one cares...your flotsam..food in Canada is inane ..a good apple is like 95 cents...a steak bought at the store...cheap cut 8 bucks...filet mignon 19.00 rib steak 15 dollars.. kraft dinner is over a buck 50 a box...unless on sale....it used to be 23 cents...in the 80's... the lower classes are just something that needs free medical services...the Wealthy in the usa are doing everything to brain wash everyone into believing free medical attention is a bad thing somehow....why?  every other civilized nation gave free medical services to the poor...the rich pollute the crappers out of the planet...people get really ill and need high end medical treatment to live on the planet...even Canada health system sucks now....they don;t care...... in the 80's two things happened that destroyed any chance of the lower classes to live a decent life...stress free.. smart technology for warfare...and the fall of communism....once communism fell in europe , social services decline in countries like Canada and Britain and france and italy and Germany...why? cause there was no more communist living with help from the governments...at one time the wealthy feared over throw through the masses demanding a comunist state...real fear in europe ...no more... flotsam...your nothing unless your wealthy... meh gun control is just a side issue |
|
