2nd Amendment - Out of date ?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

That will leave all the guns in the hands of bubba and cletus!

half the population down south then

nice - would that be Florida (you might know of it as "where dad moved to when he retired place"), Texas, or "Flyover Land" in your world view there, big fella

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

By contrast, in the US, either type prior restraint of publications is unconstitutional. With the exception of some rather Puritan pornography laws, the US probably has the greatest amount of freedom of speech and press as any nation in the world.

I find that to be debateable. We had a Ninth Circuit decision that found it appropriate to initiate a prior restraint and penalty for speech that may be offensive to minorities.

We had the Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car decision in Cali in 1998 that authorized "an injunction prohibiting the offending employee from using such [racial] epithets in the future." Janice Rogers Brown, who dissented, was roundly villified. She wrote in her dissent, "Like my colleagues, I abhor discrimination in any form. But I feel equally strongly that we cannot use the instrumentality of the courts to penalize speech before we know what was said, to whom, and with what effect. It should be obvious that we may not do so in advance, based only on predictions of future harm."

---

As far as the Second Amendment out of date, why not look at the Third Amendment's prohibition of the government quartering soldiers in private homes?

The purpose of the Second Amendment should be just as clear today as it ever was.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

I'm not saying anyone should go re-write the foundation of this country. But I did hear this perspective on removing personal freedoms associated with the 2nd.....The Bush admin had no problems pushing thru the Patriot Act with a lot of tag ons to help reduce your personal freedom in the name of saving lives. Around 3000 people died in 2001 from terrorist attacks. I believe the number of gun related deaths in 2001 was over 29000 (I'm sure John Rich or Douva will correct that number if it is off).

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[shropshire 0]

It's been rewritten before so why not again?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[freethefly 6]

Quote

It must be real fun to hunt down a deer the thrill of chasing that dumb, unarmed animal, getting it in your sights and killing the mofo

Without a deer season to thin the herds, deer populations will quickly out grow their area. Disease can run rampant in an over populated area. Crop damage can run into millions of dollars and cost the end consumer more in the grocery store. Over populated herds are a danger along the roadway (a 150 pound deer can total out a car and possibly kill the people inside). Over populations have to eventually spread out and most likely into urban areas posing a danger to homes, yards, pets and people (you must think that Bambi is all cute and cuddly when in fact deer during the rut are extremely agressive. A scared deer in a urban setting can do an extremely huge amount of damage and is an extremely dangerous animal). Us out here in the country are doing you people in the city a favor by shooting deer. We help keep produce cost down. We help control disease. We help to keep deer out of your neighborhoods and off of your manicured lawn. Most of us are responsible gun owners. I hunt because I need the meat. I cannot always afford to buy beef and I do eat deer most of the year. I will also shoot squirrels and rabbits. Deer hunting is sometimes fun and sometimes it just sucks to sit in my tree stand from sun up to sun down. Also, I would love to get a record breaking buck. A state record deer can make a person rich. My cousin's exhusband, Randy Simontich took a record deer in Bowling Green, Mo. with a bow http://www.mosportsmen.com/hunting/deer/bigbuck.htm. He made a nice little fortune from that kill. Sure, it is every deer hunters dream to bag a trophy buck but, that is not the reason we hunt. We hunt for the food, mainly. Also a large portion of the kills are donated to food shelters to feed the hungry.

Quote

I applied for a licence to hunt deer for fun, but they turned me down due to my oversized, 3 inch penis apparently i'm over endowed for such an activity

I'd much prefer that your kind stay out of the woods and away from guns.
I am a responsible gun owner. I shoot on my property at targets. I know what is behind my target. When hunting, I know what is behind the deer in my sight. I do not poach. There was a game warden here at my house on monday looking for someone who poached a deer in the woods behind me. He asked if I was shooting or heard any shots over the weekend. Neither. He also asked if he could look in my freezer and check my rifle. I said "sure". I keep my deer tags on the freezer door just in case. My rifle is clean and obvious that it has not been fired in awhile. I view poachers the same as murderers. They are not responsible gun owners. They make all hunters look bad the same as a murderer make all responsible gun owners look bad. It is not the gun at fault but the person that use it the wrong way. I have every right to own a gun and to use it in a responsible manner. I do not have a right to own a gun and use it in an irresponsible manner. Those who do will face the consequences of doing so. If I hear who poached the deer over the weekend, I will call the warden and turn that person in. That is what responsible gun owners do. We protect our rights by reporting those who wish to not follow the rule. Safer for me, safer for you.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I believe the number of gun related deaths in 2001 was over 29000

The murder toll for 2001 was 16,037. 11,348 of these were by firearm.

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004).

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

I believe the number of gun related deaths in 2001 was over 29000

The murder toll for 2001 was 16,037. 11,348 of these were by firearm.

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004).

So, it is ok to implement something like the Patriot Act to lead to less deaths from terrorism in this country....but one of the leading yearly sources of death shouldn't be changed? What I also find interesting is that many that defend the Patriot Act are strong gun rights supporters.

Again, I've never taken a side on gun ownership because there are too many issues with both sides. I do however like taking a step back and seeing it from a larger view.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

From the way i see things, wasn't the second amendment drawn up to give people powers to fight the English (by forming armed militias) if need be?

It's there from Englist tradition as codified in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which recognizes that people have the right to self defense

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

with the Militia clause coming from the anti-federalists who believed that an armed populace is the only defense against a government becoming tyranical. John Dewitt wrote that the only protection against tytanny was "a well regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country" where "regulated" in this context means trained in military affairs and properly functioning.

Now that we have secret laws, people held without charges, political speech that's illegal outside designated protest zones, and local governments that use arms against people fleeing natural disasters we may have as much need for the second ammendment as in the late 1700s.

Quote

Since i don't think America is at risk from the English anymore isn't this WAY outdated now?

Unfortunately, although technology has advanced enough people are no different now than they were then. Evil people still prey on the weak who can only protect themselves with arms.

The laws do need to be updated though. In the 1700s, private citizens who could afford them had the same arms as the government including canon and warships. Without anti-tank weapons and explosives we're no longer at parity.

Quote

are the words of the 2nd amendment cherry picked and twisted by the pro gun people to suit their needs and desires?

The founding fathers were a radical lot. No twisting of their words is needed.

[lawrocket 3]

That's the problem with removing personal freedoms. The right wing and left wing do the same thing in much the same way, only with different targets.

So the right has a problem with freedom of association and the 4th Amendment, which the left finds abhorrent.

The left has a problem with free expression that they don't like, i.e., racist, sexist or other speech they find abhorrent, and freedom of speech must yield. The right finds this insane.

I don't care what the right is upon which the government infringes - it infringes upon a right. Now, other people infringing upon my personal freedoms? I should have the right to prevent that.

The rights are to protect people against government squelching - not private activities. My rights protecting against search and seizure protect me from the government doing it - not private citizens. Since the government should not be able to prevent a person's conduct with regard to enumerated rights, i.e., prevent a person from slandering another, I should have the ability to prevent others from infringing on my rights.

With every right out there.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So, it is ok to implement something like the Patriot Act to lead to less deaths from terrorism in this country....but one of the leading yearly sources of death shouldn't be changed? What I also find interesting is that many that defend the Patriot Act are strong gun rights supporters.

some sure. But a small few of us support both the 1st and 2nd amendments. I always found it strange how many Democrats and ACLU types think there are only 9 items in the Bill of Rights.

BTW, extending your logic, we really ought to do something about that car menace - over 40,000 per year. Alcohol too - it's the cause for about 16000 of those deaths. (oh right, we tried that)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

By contrast, in the US, either type prior restraint of publications is unconstitutional. With the exception of some rather Puritan pornography laws, the US probably has the greatest amount of freedom of speech and press as any nation in the world.

I find that to be debateable. We had a Ninth Circuit decision that found it appropriate to initiate a prior restraint and penalty for speech that may be offensive to minorities.

We had the Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car decision in Cali in 1998 that authorized "an injunction prohibiting the offending employee from using such [racial] epithets in the future." Janice Rogers Brown, who dissented, was roundly villified. She wrote in her dissent, "Like my colleagues, I abhor discrimination in any form. But I feel equally strongly that we cannot use the instrumentality of the courts to penalize speech before we know what was said, to whom, and with what effect. It should be obvious that we may not do so in advance, based only on predictions of future harm."

I think that decision is the exception rather than the rule. Sometimes, individual courts just plain do the wrong thing. Fortunately, that's not an indicator of either a general rule or a trand. In any event, I agree with the dissenting opinion.

[misaltas 0]

Quote

I'm not saying anyone should go re-write the foundation of this country.

There'd be nothing wrong with it, acc'd to Thomas Jefferson. Someone spent a lot of time engraving this quote of his on one of the interior walls of his memorial structure:

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

I think of this quote anytime someone uses the old "because the founding fathers said so" argument.

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

[Gawain 0]

Quote

2nd Amendment - Out of date?

No.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Maybe we should ban Chuck Norris.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Quote

That will leave all the guns in the hands of bubba and cletus!

So -

anyone from a lower population density area than you is defined as "bubba and cletus"

It was a contrasting joke to your "urban area" aka inner-city poverty stricken blacks.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I believe the number of gun related deaths in 2001 was over 29000

The murder toll for 2001 was 16,037. 11,348 of these were by firearm.

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004).

So, it is ok to implement something like the Patriot Act to lead to less deaths from terrorism in this country....but one of the leading yearly sources of death shouldn't be changed? What I also find interesting is that many that defend the Patriot Act are strong gun rights supporters.

Again, I've never taken a side on gun ownership because there are too many issues with both sides. I do however like taking a step back and seeing it from a larger view.

44 thousand people were killed in automobile accidents in 2003 - yet I don't see you saying we need to get rid of cars.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I believe the number of gun related deaths in 2001 was over 29000

The murder toll for 2001 was 16,037. 11,348 of these were by firearm.

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004).

So, it is ok to implement something like the Patriot Act to lead to less deaths from terrorism in this country....but one of the leading yearly sources of death shouldn't be changed? What I also find interesting is that many that defend the Patriot Act are strong gun rights supporters.

Again, I've never taken a side on gun ownership because there are too many issues with both sides. I do however like taking a step back and seeing it from a larger view.

You're making a case based on stereotypes. I've never supported the Patriot Act, but I support gun rights.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That will leave all the guns in the hands of bubba and cletus!

So -

anyone from a lower population density area than you is defined as "bubba and cletus"

It was a contrasting joke to your "urban area" aka inner-city poverty stricken blacks.

I understand. But I don't equate "urban area" to poverty stricken blacks. When I throw that term out, I think more along the lines of effete, elite, city dwelling upper crust socialites. "High population density" applies in more than just the slums.

You live on a lot of very sophmoric, liberal guilt based stereotyped assumptions, this is another example. It's why I was teasing you. But it's fun to trade posts. thanks

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants