SkyDekker 1,465 #101 November 19, 2003 QuoteWe don't? How do you figure that? If guns are banned, suddenly they won't exist anymore and all violent crime will stop? I'm pretty sure there were muggers, robbers, rapists and murderers before guns existed, and they will exist afterward as well. Though, it is my understanding that wa snot the intent behind that part of the Bill of Rights. You never did reply to my other response though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #102 November 19, 2003 QuoteI really don't think the American people will ever have to defend their homes and families from American soldiers. Do you? Yes, I think one day, probably not in the near future, but there will come a time when it is necessary. It is inevitable, as history has shown. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #103 November 19, 2003 Quoteobviously that interpretation is open to change. But, the average foot soldier really carries a very small number of arms. I am sure the NRA would not really stand for that large of a restriction. The average footsoldier does not carry a magnum .44. But the average foot soldier does carry an M16. That is not practical for an average citizen, but they are similar in terms of fire power, actuall an M16 has more firepower. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #104 November 19, 2003 QuoteThough, it is my understanding that wa snot the intent behind that part of the Bill of Rights. Probably true, because the current circumstances weren't conceived of by the framers, and because they already commonly carried firearms and never dreamed of a time when someone would want to restrict that for any reason other than to suppress the populace. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #105 November 19, 2003 QuoteBut the average foot soldier does carry an M16. That is not practical for an average citizen, but they are similar in terms of fire power, actuall an M16 has more firepower. So, in your interpretation, you should then by ok with all adult americans being allowed to carry a M16, but no other guns are allowed? The interpretation is that you are allowed to have what the average foot soldier carries. Hence, no other guns are allowed. Would you go along with such a law? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #106 November 19, 2003 QuoteSo, in your interpretation, you should then by ok with all adult americans being allowed to carry a M16, but no other guns are allowed? The interpretation is that you are allowed to have what the average foot soldier carries. Hence, no other guns are allowed. Would you go along with such a law? No, that's impractical and ridiculous. Let's not be pedantic. The point is that the level of weaponry commonly available to a soldier should be available to the public. That means hand guns, rifles, shotguns, and automatic rifles. It does not mean mortars, tanks, smart bombs or nukes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #107 November 19, 2003 QuoteProbably true, because the current circumstances weren't conceived of by the framers, and because they already commonly carried firearms and never dreamed of a time when someone would want to restrict that for any reason other than to suppress the populace. True and hence it is quite allowable for judges to change the perceived interpretation of the Bill of Rights, since circumstances change. The circumstances that let the framers to include that passage as no longer, hence the passage should be no longer too. Does that make sense? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #108 November 19, 2003 QuoteNo, that's impractical and ridiculous. Let's not be pedantic. Well, that is the end of the discussion for me. I tried to have a level headed, no name calling discussion with you. Obviously you are not capable of doing so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #109 November 19, 2003 QuoteTrue and hence it is quite allowable for judges to change the perceived interpretation of the Bill of Rights, since circumstances change. No, judges interpret laws, not the constitution. QuoteThe circumstances that let the framers to include that passage as no longer, hence the passage should be no longer too. Does that make sense? Honestly...no, I have no idea what you're saying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #110 November 19, 2003 I wasn't calling you anything. It's an impractical suggestion that everyone only be allowed to carry around M16s. And by pedantic I meant that you're concentrating on trivial aspects of my argument. It's not the exact make and model that should be considered, rather the type of weapon and its firepower. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #111 November 19, 2003 QuoteThe circumstances that let the framers to include that passage as no longer, hence the passage should be no longer too. Does that make sense? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Honestly...no, I have no idea what you're saying. Since the circumstances that led to the inclusion of that passage are no longer in place, that passage should no longer be in place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #112 November 19, 2003 QuoteIt's not the exact make and model that should be considered, rather the type of weapon and its firepower. That is not what you said when you mentioned the interpretation. If you are allowed to carry what the average footsoldier carries, then conversely you should not be allowed to carry anything else. Furthermore, I would think that the rational man would keep in mind that the framers of the Bill of Rights could not possibly foresee the immense firepower which could once be packed into a single weapon. Hence, to me it would make even more sense that guns are restricted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #113 November 19, 2003 QuoteSince the circumstances that led to the inclusion of that passage are no longer in place, that passage should no longer be in place. I didn't say the original circumstances don't exist. One of the reasons we don't have to fear government oppression, is because we have guns. If we didn't what would have happened during the depression, and McCarthyism, and the 60's? During those times the government greatly overstepped their granted authority in the surveilance and arrest of average citizens, and circumstances existed for civil uprisings, but it fortunately never got that far. I was saying that in addition to the original intent, there are new circumstances that support the reasoning behind that ammendment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #114 November 19, 2003 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not the exact make and model that should be considered, rather the type of weapon and its firepower. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is not what you said when you mentioned the interpretation. Actually, it is. I said we should be able to arm ourselves in the same manner. Not with the exact same weapon. QuoteFurthermore, I would think that the rational man would keep in mind that the framers of the Bill of Rights could not possibly foresee the immense firepower which could once be packed into a single weapon. Hence, to me it would make even more sense that guns are restricted. That doesn't make sense. It's called balance. Do you remember the bank robbers in LA with the automatic weapons and body armor? The police couldn't stop them. They were walking down the street and the police were shooting at them with their handguns and couldn't stop them. What did they do? They went to the local gun store and got some EQUAL firepower. If you restrict the types of weapons that you can have, the only thing that will happen is that law abidiing citizens won't have them. The people who can be most trusted with them, and who SHOULD have the right to have them and protect themselves would literally be outgunned by the criminals who would ignore any such restriction. And for the record, that bank robbery incident is one of only a small handful of incidents where automatic weapons and body armor were used by criminals. The so called assault weapon ban current in effect has had absolutely no effect on crime or deaths by gun. So what was the benefit of restricting those weapons? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #115 November 19, 2003 QuoteI didn't say the original circumstances don't exist. One of the reasons we don't have to fear government oppression, is because we have guns. If we didn't what would have happened during the depression, and McCarthyism, and the 60's? During those times the government greatly overstepped their granted authority in the surveilance and arrest of average citizens, and circumstances existed for civil uprisings, but it fortunately never got that far. Though there are many more countries that went through those phases. Yet guns are by far not as prolific as in the US. Those countries came through it fine, eventhough their citizens were not armed to the teeth. QuoteI was saying that in addition to the original intent, there are new circumstances that support the reasoning behind that ammendment. So, you think that the avegare US citizen needs to be afraid of the US army and US government surpressing them and invading their homes etc? QuoteNo, judges interpret laws, not the constitution. Then who interprets the constitution? Who came up with your interpretation of what arms you have the right to bear? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #116 November 19, 2003 QuoteThe joke was the mistake second half of the sentence, not the mistake in the first. brief history You're the second person to show me a NRA webpage to defend the NRA. Humour me a moment. Suppose that the NRA and KKK were more closely realated then one would like to beleive. Do you really think you'd find it on the NRA's webpage? That's like telling me: "Johns not an a$$hole! Just go ask him!" Now, bear in mind, I'm not out to take down the NRA... we just keep getting dragged into gun control issues while trying to discuss the social and political problems of a Country... however, The National Riffles Association, dedicated to keeping guns in the hands of gun owners and fighting any form of limitation restraint or control, was founded the same year that the bunch o' bedsheet wearing, negro hangin, shotgun weilding hicks were outlawed and disbanned. Now I'll humour you a moment and pretend like there's no connection. Do you not think many of the Brand Spankin' New members of the Brand Spankin' New Gun Club might have come from under a few of those bed sheets? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #117 November 19, 2003 QuoteWhen people are scared, they buy things. Keep the people scared, and they keep buying things. When people are scared about guns, they want to ban guns. Keep the people scared about guns, and they keep banning guns. (The Sarah Brady philosophy) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #118 November 19, 2003 QuoteThat doesn't make sense. It's called balance. Do you remember the bank robbers in LA with the automatic weapons and body armor? The police couldn't stop them. They were walking down the street and the police were shooting at them with their handguns and couldn't stop them. What did they do? They went to the local gun store and got some EQUAL firepower. IIRC, one robber shot himself and one was apprehended by a SWAT team using their standard weapons. Hence, the added firepower from the local gun store didn't help with that. QuoteActually, it is. I said we should be able to arm ourselves in the same manner. Not with the exact same weapon. OK, so you are allowed to own and carry a gun similar to the M16, but no other guns allowed. Would that not be the correct response to that interpretation? It could help you defend yourself from attackers and the US government. Obvisouly you would not need any otehr guns? On top of that, obviously if the weapons are no longer produced it will be much harder to get the weapon in the first place, both legally and illegally. Just think of weapons grade plutonium. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #119 November 19, 2003 QuoteThough there are many more countries that went through those phases. Yet guns are by far not as prolific as in the US. Those countries came through it fine, eventhough their citizens were not armed to the teeth. Really? Like Cuba? Are you honestly going to tell me that countries that were overtaken by dictatorial or communist forces came through it fine? QuoteSo, you think that the avegare US citizen needs to be afraid of the US army and US government surpressing them and invading their homes etc? I'd say the average US citizen has a responsibility to be on alert for thtat possibility. Freedom only exists as a result of vigilence, it is not a self sustaining thing. If left unchecked, power will corrupt those with it. That's a fact. I greatly fear the current power shifts and central consolidation, liberal monitoring of average citizens that is taking place. I see it all as a possible prelude to government suppression. It may not be planned to be, but some day, someone with the power to take advantage of the tools at their disposal will try, it's only a matter of time. QuoteThen who interprets the constitution? Who came up with your interpretation of what arms you have the right to bear? Judges interpret laws to see if they fit into the framework of the constitution. Constitutional scholars have made the interpretation I referred to by reading through the patriot papers and other publications by the framers of the constitution. I've linked to them before in other threads on this topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #120 November 19, 2003 Quoteyour odds at being shot and killed in the USA are about 1 in 27,000 but your odds at dying in a car wreck are about 1 in 7000. I think we have a far bigger social problem with driving than we do with shooting You are correct. But gun deaths are sensational and make the news, and people react to what the media feeds them. Thus, less attention is paid to many other much greater causes of death, and everyone is led to falsely believe that guns are the #1 problem. Ten leading causes of death, 1994 (U.S.) 1) Heart disease .......................... 2,286,000 2) Cancer .................................... 734,000 3) Stroke .................................... 536,000 4) Lung diseases ......................... 102,000 5) Pneumonia & influenza ............. 82,000 6) Diabetes ................................. 55,000 7) Motor vehicle accidents ............. 42,000 8) AIDS ...................................... 42,000 9) Suicide ................................... 33,000 10) Liver diseases ........................ 26,000 Source: National Center for Health Statistics I don't see "guns" anywhere on that list! If you add up the top ten causes of premature death (3,938,000), and compare that to the number of fatal firearm murders and accidents (11,000), you see that guns are used in just 4/10ths of one percent of all premature deaths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nuke 0 #121 November 19, 2003 First off, I have not seen the movie, will do when I get home (internetshopping rules sometimes). I really liked "Stupid White Men" and "The Awful Truth" though. I do, by the way, own shootguns and rifles and I'm from Sweden but that doesn't automatically make me a communist At his website www.michaelmoore.com he comments on different things related to the movie. Take a look, I think he makes a interesting point that no one has taken him to court over anything in the movie. In Sweden (and I do believe it's the same the world over) the most likely person getting shoot is not a burglar or a gangbanger. It's usually someone in the family who's mistaken for an intruder that gets shoot. I think that's pretty scary. /M Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #122 November 19, 2003 QuoteReally? Like Cuba? Are you honestly going to tell me that countries that were overtaken by dictatorial or communist forces came through it fine? And there are quite a few countries where that didn't happen. By the way, I don't think guns were restricted in pre-Castro Cuba, hence that argument would actually be against your standpoint. QuoteI'd say the average US citizen has a responsibility to be on alert for thtat possibility. Freedom only exists as a result of vigilence, it is not a self sustaining thing. If left unchecked, power will corrupt those with it. That's a fact. I greatly fear the current power shifts and central consolidation, liberal monitoring of average citizens that is taking place. I see it all as a possible prelude to government suppression. It may not be planned to be, but some day, someone with the power to take advantage of the tools at their disposal will try, it's only a matter of time. Or, one would do that be electiing the proper government. The immense powers given to the government have come in place due to laws passed by your current goverment. Since it scares you so much that you feel the need to arm yourself, I would assume that you are not going to vote for Bush in the next election? QuoteJudges interpret laws to see if they fit into the framework of the constitution. Constitutional scholars have made the interpretation I referred to by reading through the patriot papers and other publications by the framers of the constitution. I've linked to them before in other threads on this topic. As far as I understand, constitutional scholars have no powers in the current framewaork. It is the judges who decide whether a law is constitional or not. In order to do that, the judge will have to interpret the constitution. Or am I way off base here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #123 November 19, 2003 QuoteQuoteWhen people are scared, they buy things. Keep the people scared, and they keep buying things. When people are scared about guns, they want to ban guns. Keep the people scared about guns, and they keep banning guns. (The Sarah Brady philosophy) Apparently not friend. That would be wonderful but we know it's not the case. Pople buy guns 'cause their affraid. There afraid they have to defend themselves so they buy guns to do it. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #124 November 19, 2003 QuoteGuns? - designed to kill With the exception of bows, I can't find another object on your list whose sole purpose for existing is to kill. This comment disregards the vast numbers of people who use firearms for sport. And a great many guns are specifically manufactured for sporting use. The so-called "assault weapon", the AR-15 rifle, is the most popular rifle used in Highpower rifle shooting competition. And that's just punching holes in paper at 200, 300 and 600 yards. Do you object to people using guns for target shooting? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #125 November 19, 2003 QuoteOn top of that, obviously if the weapons are no longer produced it will be much harder to get the weapon in the first place, both legally and illegally. Just think of weapons grade plutonium. Ummm...ever see those commercials with Sally Struthers to get your mail order diploma in accounting, art instruction, or gun smithing? Anyone with a hunk of metal and some tools can make a gun. I don't know where you get your mail order weapons grade plutonium license. Cocaine is banned, it's not even manufactured in this country. Yet I can go get some a block away anytime I want. QuoteOK, so you are allowed to own and carry a gun similar to the M16, but no other guns allowed. Would that not be the correct response to that interpretation? It could help you defend yourself from attackers and the US government. Obvisouly you would not need any otehr guns? I really don't see the reason for this train of thought. Yeah, fine, just let me have an M16, a shotgun and a 9mm sidearm, I don't care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
