Ron 10 #126 July 9, 2009 QuoteEver tried yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? You are free to do it, you just can be held liable if your actions cause a problem.... And it is not even illegal if there really is a fire! So you could carry an M16 all day. As long as you don't break the law and shoot it ant anyone without reason. QuoteEver had to empty your pockets or walk through a metal detector to get into a courthouse? To get on a plane? To get into a public or tax subsidized museum (or similar attraction)? And I would empty my holster when I empty my pockets... your argument is weak. QuoteMore seriously, consider how the RIAA has been able to successfully sidestep due process requirements by "prosecuting" in civil courts instead of criminal courts, since they know the standard of proof could not be met in a criminal case. So I guess you think that is 100 OK? QuoteSeems like most any punishment for victimless crimes (e.g. drug law violations, gambling, prostitution) could be considered cruel and unusual. Ah, nice try, but "seems like" is not gonna win anything. QuoteI fixed that for ya! No, the 10th says that the States have any right not directly given to the Federal.... Again, nice try."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #127 July 9, 2009 QuoteIn other words, the fact that the founding fathers DIDN'T say something - means nothing. But the fact they DID should say plenty. And they said plenty of times that the individual should have the right to keep and bear arms.... Yet guys like you don't agree. And yet guys like you can't find ONE quote to back your position. QuoteYes. You cannot walk into the operating room of a publicly funded hospital to give your opinions on climate change. However, there has to be public space where you can do so. But would you be OK with an entire city not allowing you to discuss climate change? Would you allow a ban on certain topics State wide? How about a ban that stated you could not discuss climate change in the US at all? QuoteYes. If you enter the gate area of a public airport, you lose some of your rights to not be searched. However, before you enter the area, you must be warned of this and given the opportunity to refuse to enter. How would you feel about an entire City saying that if you come into the City you can be searched for no reason? What if California said that you could be stopped and searched at anytime you are in the State.... You OK with that? QuoteYes. If you are a sniper, and you're killing people in a clock tower, the police can blow you away without any warning. However, once you are arrested and charged, then you have the right to face your accuser. And how about once arrested... Would you allow an entire State to say you have no right to face your accuser? QuoteYou get the idea. You clearly didn't, or more likely you made the choice to ignore it and go in another direction. So I will ask again: Bill, would you be OK with an entire City or State removing your rights to discuss a single topic? Removing your right to face your accuser? Removing your right to trial by jury? Removing your right against illegal search and seizure? Removing your protection against cruel and unusual punishment? An entire City or State, not one area."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #128 July 9, 2009 QuoteYou are free to do it, you just can be held liable if your actions cause a problem. That argument can be made of any action we choose to take, from eating a hamburger to committing murder. QuoteAnd I would empty my holster when I empty my pockets... your argument is weak. But there's no probable cause to justify the search. Why aren't you outraged that the fourth amendment has been defiled so? QuoteSo I guess you think that is 100 OK? It doesn't matter what I think. I'm not part of the judicial branch of government. I can state my opinion in public and private forums. I can vote consistently with my opinion. I can write my government officials and petition my government. But, at the end of the day, judicial opinion is the only opinion that really matters w/r/t what does and does not constitute a violation of rights. QuoteAh, nice try, but "seems like" is not gonna win anything. Don't look now, but that's all your argument is based on. In your opinion (which is no more or less important than mine), it seems like your (not necessarily you, specifically) rights, as guaranteed under the second amendment, are being violated. QuoteNo, the 10th says that the States or the people have any right power not directly given to the Federal.... Again, nice try. Right, which lends strength to the power of the states. The fourteenth amendment, on the other hand, explicitly says that states cannot abridge citizen's rights that are recognized by the Constitution, i.e. the Constitution trumps state laws.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #129 July 9, 2009 QuoteThat argument can be made of any action we choose to take, from eating a hamburger to committing murder. True, and I am more about limiting dangerous ACTIONS not items. Would you be OK with a city outlawing hamburgers? QuoteBut there's no probable cause to justify the search. Why aren't you outraged that the fourth amendment has been defiled so? In a limited situation such as an airport or a courthouse some level of reduction in rights could be allowed. But, imagine if a person on flight 11 had a pistol that day. So, an argument could be made that no place should have limits.... Again, I am more about limiting and punishing ACTIONS, not items. Quote It doesn't matter what I think. Then why bother posting an opinion? Why bother voting? QuoteDon't look now, but that's all your argument is based on. No my argument is based on me being able to provide cite after cite to back my position and you not being able to produce ONE to support yours. QuoteRight, which lends strength to the power of the states Only those powers NOT delegated by the Constitution to the United States. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the statesare reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. " So anything NOT covered by the Constitution is given to the States. The 2nd IS covered by the Constitution."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #130 July 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou are free to do it, you just can be held liable if your actions cause a problem. That argument can be made of any action we choose to take, from eating a hamburger to committing murder. It can, and in my opinion it should. Your observation in no way takes away from Ron's argument. Did you have a response to it?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #131 July 9, 2009 QuoteWould you be OK with a city outlawing hamburgers? Nope. Nor am I okay with a city outlawing guns. QuoteIn a limited situation such as an airport or a courthouse some level of reduction in rights could be allowed. So, you're saying that the individual's rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment are not unlimited? Fair enough. The same can be said of the second amendment. QuoteBut, imagine if a person on flight 11 had a pistol that day. So, an argument could be made that no place should have limits. Give me a break. We still allow far more effective weapons on planes than box cutters. If someone needs a gun to defend themselves from such a barely lethal weapon as a box cutter, I wouldn't count on them as a reliable source of help with a gun, either. QuoteNo my argument is based on me being able to provide cite after cite to back my position and you not being able to produce ONE to support yours. Do you still don't get it? The words of the founding fathers that count are the ones in the Constitution. The judicial branch has the responsibility to interpret those words. The SCOTUS has the final word in the matter, under the authority granted to them in Article III of the Constitution. The SCOTUS has decided that the second amendment is an individual right, but not an unlimited right. No quotes from any of the framers changes that, no matter which side of the debate the quotes may support. My position is and has been that the SCOTUS has the final say. It is you who has been unable to produce any evidence or quotes to the contrary. I can produce Article III, section 2 of the Constitution to support my position. Do you have something that trumps that?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #132 July 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou are free to do it, you just can be held liable if your actions cause a problem. That argument can be made of any action we choose to take, from eating a hamburger to committing murder. It can, and in my opinion it should. Your observation in no way takes away from Ron's argument. Did you have a response to it? By that logic, the right to keep and bear arms cannot be eliminated no matter what laws are passed, so why even worry about it?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #133 July 9, 2009 Quote [If someone needs a gun to defend themselves from such a barely lethal weapon as a box cutter, I wouldn't count on them as a reliable source of help with a gun, either. Tell you what - we'll get some dummy knives and a Simunitions pistol. You defend against me either barehanded or with a dummy knife, and I'll defend against you with the pistol. Best of 3 rounds, wins. Care to put any money on the outcome? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #134 July 9, 2009 Quote By that logic, the right to keep and bear arms cannot be eliminated no matter what laws are passed I thought that was sort of the POINT of it being a right? Quote so why even worry about it? Because people ARE trying to do just that.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #135 July 9, 2009 QuoteBecause people ARE trying to do just that. Not by Tom's logic.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #136 July 9, 2009 Quote Quote [If someone needs a gun to defend themselves from such a barely lethal weapon as a box cutter, I wouldn't count on them as a reliable source of help with a gun, either. Tell you what - we'll get some dummy knives and a Simunitions pistol. You defend against me either barehanded or with a dummy knife, and I'll defend against you with the pistol. Best of 3 rounds, wins. Care to put any money on the outcome? Ohhhh that sounds like fun. Can I be next? www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,162 #137 July 9, 2009 > And yet guys like you can't find ONE quote to back your position. Which guys like me, and which position? I think it's an individual and a collective right. Your tendency to stereotype people has led you to make yet another error. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #138 July 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteOnce you put a qualifier like "lawful" you are admitting that some classes of citizen (felons) CAN be denied. You just killed your own argument. No, not really. If you look at Jeffersons quote he said "free". Nice try. Convicted felons remain convicted felons after release from prison. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #139 July 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf someone needs a gun to defend themselves from such a barely lethal weapon as a box cutter, I wouldn't count on them as a reliable source of help with a gun, either. Tell you what - we'll get some dummy knives and a Simunitions pistol. You defend against me either barehanded or with a dummy knife, and I'll defend against you with the pistol. Best of 3 rounds, wins. Your proposal is irrelevant, and would serve to neither support nor disprove my assertion.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #140 July 9, 2009 The problem with that line of thought, is those who find firearms are most useful for self defense are those who can't not defend themselves with hand to hand combat (i.e. my 60+ year old mother).www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #141 July 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf someone needs a gun to defend themselves from such a barely lethal weapon as a box cutter, I wouldn't count on them as a reliable source of help with a gun, either. Tell you what - we'll get some dummy knives and a Simunitions pistol. You defend against me either barehanded or with a dummy knife, and I'll defend against you with the pistol. Best of 3 rounds, wins. Your proposal is irrelevant, and would serve to neither support nor disprove my assertion. Incorrect - it would ABSOLUTELY disprove your original comment, above - unless you LIKE getting cut, that is. For myself, I try to avoid it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #142 July 10, 2009 QuoteThe problem with that line of thought, is those who find firearms are most useful for self defense are those who can't not defend themselves with hand to hand combat (i.e. my 60+ year old mother). You make a good point. There is undoubtedly a subset of people who are physically and mentally capable of effectively defending themselves with a gun, but not by other means. To be fair, I believe such people are a minority of people at large and of air travelers at large. I'm not saying that firearms are useless for self defense. But, I do think that most people use weapons because they have chosen to fight, rather than choosing to fight because they have a weapon. I guess what I'm saying is that guns don't kill people; people kill people. If someone wants to do harm to someone else (justifiably or not), if they don't have a gun, they'll just use some other weapon.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #143 July 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteYour proposal is irrelevant, and would serve to neither support nor disprove my assertion. Incorrect - it would ABSOLUTELY disprove your original comment, above - unless you LIKE getting cut, that is. For myself, I try to avoid it. No, it wouldn't. My comment: "We still allow far more effective weapons on planes than box cutters. If someone needs a gun to defend themselves from such a barely lethal weapon as a box cutter, I wouldn't count on them as a reliable source of help with a gun, either." You'll notice that it in no way compares the effectiveness of a knife against a gun. If you would like to discuss the merits of guns against other weapons in various scenarios, feel free to start a thread on that topic. In the meantime, I'd appreciate you not misconstruing my words.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #144 July 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYour proposal is irrelevant, and would serve to neither support nor disprove my assertion. Incorrect - it would ABSOLUTELY disprove your original comment, above - unless you LIKE getting cut, that is. For myself, I try to avoid it. No, it wouldn't. My comment: "We still allow far more effective weapons on planes than box cutters. If someone needs a gun to defend themselves from such a barely lethal weapon as a box cutter, I wouldn't count on them as a reliable source of help with a gun, either." You'll notice that it in no way compares the effectiveness of a knife against a gun. If you would like to discuss the merits of guns against other weapons in various scenarios, feel free to start a thread on that topic. In the meantime, I'd appreciate you not misconstruing my words. I mentioned nothing about superiority of one weapon over another, since you mention misconstruing words. Your statement implies that someone should easily be able to defend against a knife without a gun, and that someone who WOULD need a gun to defend against a knife wouldn't be much help in any case. I'm just giving you a chance to put your money where your mouth is.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #145 July 10, 2009 Quote Your statement implies that someone should easily be able to defend against a knife box cutter without a gun, and that someone who WOULD need a gun to defend against a knife box cutter wouldn't be much help in any case. There, I fixed it to accurately reflect my assertion. A box cutter is to knives what a firecracker is to bombs. Quote I'm just giving you a chance to put your money where your mouth is. Okay. Would you like to bet that if you try to attack me with a box cutter, I can neutralize your threat using an object allowed on board by TSA as my weapon? That would accurately test my assertion.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #146 July 10, 2009 Quote Quote Your statement implies that someone should easily be able to defend against a knife box cutter without a gun, and that someone who WOULD need a gun to defend against a knife box cutter wouldn't be much help in any case. There, I fixed it to accurately reflect my assertion. A box cutter is to knives what a firecracker is to bombs. Quote I'm just giving you a chance to put your money where your mouth is. Okay. Would you like to bet that if you try to attack me with a box cutter, I can neutralize your threat using an object allowed on board by TSA as my weapon? That would accurately test my assertion. Box cutter instead of a knife is fine. Why the sudden change to a "TSA allowed object"? YOU were the one that mentioned a gun, originally - having a change of thought, now?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #147 July 10, 2009 QuoteBox cutter instead of a knife is fine. Why the sudden change to a "TSA allowed object"? YOU were the one that mentioned a gun, originally - having a change of thought, now? No change of thought. I said, "We still allow far more effective weapons on planes than box cutters." We was intended as collective we, represented by TSA enforcing security regulations.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #148 July 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteOnce you put a qualifier like "lawful" you are admitting that some classes of citizen (felons) CAN be denied. You just killed your own argument. No, not really. If you look at Jeffersons quote he said "free". Nice try. Convicted felons remain convicted felons after release from prison. One needs to consider the context of the times. When Jefferson said "free", he was using the common parlance of the day, i.e., distinguishing "free" from "slave" (not distinguishing it from "incarcerated criminal"). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #149 July 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteBox cutter instead of a knife is fine. Why the sudden change to a "TSA allowed object"? YOU were the one that mentioned a gun, originally - having a change of thought, now? No change of thought. I said, "We still allow far more effective weapons on planes than box cutters." We was intended as collective we, represented by TSA enforcing security regulations. I don't disagree with your basic statement, since there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people; but again - why the sudden change in what you're willing to use to makeyour point?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #150 July 10, 2009 Quote Tell you what - we'll get some dummy knives and a Simunitions pistol. You defend against me either barehanded or with a dummy knife, and I'll defend against you with the pistol. Best of 3 rounds, wins. Care to put any money on the outcome? ok... enough with the penis waving.... the point was that if someone couldn't use what was at hand (legally) on an aircraft to defend against a box cutter or your training knives, that they probably wouldn't be much good with a gun. You take the dummy knife, put red ink on the edge, I'll take my belt + buckle, and we'll see how much red ink gets on me before you hit the deck from the repeated buckle blows to the head.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
