The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1521 - 1540 of total 5646 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 13, 2013 - 06:31pm PT
IDIOTS
tooth

Trad climber
B.C.
Jan 13, 2013 - 06:31pm PT
this is interesting, but don't read it if you don't shoot at least once a month.

https://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 13, 2013 - 06:34pm PT
ATF maintains the Interstate Theft Program, which is a voluntary reporting program that handles the theft or loss of firearms from interstate shipments. Since there is no legal reporting requirement regarding such activity, there is a risk that these thefts will not be reported or investigated because of questions regarding jurisdiction.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-national-tracing-center.html
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 13, 2013 - 06:35pm PT
But the guns used at sandy hook were stolen. And when she went to report it.... BAM! Were any other of these massacres that are motivating you to make more and better laws done with stolen weapons?


stolen? yeah I guess so if you consider a son going to the house he lives in and taking them

she went to report it? No, he killed her immediately then went to the school, she never had a chance to "report it"


anyone can sit in the bleachers and state the obvious, like what good are laws when people won't follow them anyhow?

How about you putting forth some real specific suggestions of your own that you know from your deep intellect and experience will mitigate mass gun murders in the US?

thanks
Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Jan 13, 2013 - 06:36pm PT
…That is, after all, what the constitution says.

Actually it is not.

Many serious constitutional scholars, and the SCOTUS in its recent decision Heller decision, agree that the preamble (“A well regulated militia…”) and the body (“The right of the people to keep and bear arms…”) were intended as harmonious statements, not in tension as Hedge would lead us to believe.

I quote here the conclusion of an excellent article on the subject:

“In recent years it has been suggested that the second amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, but not the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period in which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known surviving writing of the 1787-1791 period states that thesis. Instead, "the people" in the second amendment meant the same as it did in the first, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments, i.e., each and every free person. A select militia as the only privileged class entitled to keep and bear arms was considered as execrative to a free society as would be select spokesmen approved by government as the only class entitled to freedom of the press. Nor were those who adopted the Bill of Rights willing to clutter it with details such as non-political justifications for the right (e.g., self-protection and hunting) or a list of what everyone knew to be common arms, such as muskets, scatterguns, pistols and swords. In light of contemporary developments, perhaps the most striking insight made by those who originally opposed the attempt to summarize all the rights of a freeman in a bill of rights was that, no matter how it was worded, artful misconstruction would be employed to limit and destroy the very rights sought to be protected.”

Dr. Stephen P. Halbrook is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. Dr. Halbrook received his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center and Ph.D. in social philosophy from Florida State University, and he has taught legal and political philosophy at George Mason University, Howard University, and Tuskegee Institute. His newest book is The Founders Second Amendment.

Here’s the article should you care to read it.

Hedge, when you refer to slavery as a way to discredit the founders you betray your lack of understanding of history. It is clear that they did the best they could to sew the seeds for slavery's demise, while still forming a union. I.E they set a date to end importing of slaves, they arranged the first census so as to assure that slave states were a minority in Congress, and then there are the words of the Declaration.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jan 13, 2013 - 06:36pm PT
Some things are just out of our hands, Norton, and cannot be controlled.
tooth

Trad climber
B.C.
Jan 13, 2013 - 06:37pm PT
I was being sarcastic Norton.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 13, 2013 - 06:47pm PT
ok tooth, I did not get your sarcasm, thought were you serious

and chaz? yeah maybe there really is nothing we can do about it

but you know, let's wait until tuesday or so this week when Vice President Biden gives the results of his talking to people on both sides of the gun issue, along with the study group's suggestions

I would like to hear if you think any of what they come up with is agreeable with you?

or are you predisposed to basically reject any new legislation as being won't work, no new laws needed because they won't be followed, over reaching big government, or whatever reasons can be pulled out of the bag because as you said, maybe we just can't do anything anyway?
monolith

climber
albany,ca
Jan 13, 2013 - 06:51pm PT
“Even as generously construed in Heller,” he said, “the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years. The failure of Congress to take any action to minimize the risk of similar tragedies in the future cannot be blamed on the court’s decision in Heller.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gun-plans-dont-conflict-with-justices-08-ruling.html?_r=0
Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Jan 13, 2013 - 07:06pm PT
Says the guy who's trying to tell me that the 2nd amendment doesn't say what it actually says.

So you are saying the use of the words "THE PEOPLE" in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments have differing meanings?

Your reading of the second, by interpreting the preamble as some kind of limitation of rights (actually it is an affirmation of states rights) flies in the face of the main statement which has absolute clarity:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The article I linked above covers very thoroughly just how those words were arrived at and what was meant by them.

mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 13, 2013 - 07:06pm PT
The third program area [interstate loss or theft] has no enabling regulation. The interstate theft program addresses the many difficulties faced when firearms that are being shipped fail to arrive at their intended destination. Because the circumstances of their disappearance are so often unknown, it is not immediately clear whether they were stolen or misplaced. For this reason, this program area addresses both theft and loss under a uniform procedure, which is described in detail in the ensuing paragraphs.

How do guns disappear? More importantly why is there no FEDERALLY REQUIRED REPORTING for the disappearance of GUNS during INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS?

State and local law enforcement agencies often lack the jurisdiction or authority to investigate these interstate movements, particularly when the point of loss has not been determined.

However, an accurate determination of the full extent of all firearm thefts and losses in America is not possible. One of the leading factors is that there is no requirement that non-licensees report stolen firearms. A second is that among those non-licensees that want to report firearms thefts and losses, there is frequently an inability to accurately identify the firearms.


This is absurdly irresponsible. And this is what your NRA memberships go to support... more irresponsible bullshit to boost gun sales while disregarding public safety... all due to a deliberate misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-3317-2.pdf
zBrown

Ice climber
chingadero de chula vista
Jan 13, 2013 - 07:19pm PT
bang bang - the big bang

The Big Bang Theory

Dolphins may also be able to immobilize or even kill their prey using bursts of high-frequency sound. This idea was proposed in passing by a number of scientists but was first systematically investigated by the American and Danish marine mammal researchers Kenneth and Bertel Modl, in the first 'full-scale review' of the idea in 1983.

This 'big bang' theory suggests that, even if dolphins cannot kill their prey outright with bursts of sound, they can impair their prey's equilibrium or sensory system, making them easier to capture.

The 'big bang' theory may explain: how dolphins can catch prey that can easily out-distance and out-maneuver them; why dolphins have lost a large number of their functional teeth and their once-powerful jaws; and the high degree of co-operation between dolphins, necessary because they are carrying around the equivalent of a 'loaded gun'.

These so-called 'loud impulse sounds' have been recorded during predation in the wild by bottlenose dolphins and killer whales, made when the animals were hunting mullet and salmon respectively.

Norris and colleagues presented further evidence in 1989, based on experiments where the exposed anchovies to pneumatically-generated 'loud impulse sounds' similar to those recorded in the wild. They discovered that these sounds killed and injured the anchovies. More scientific evidence will be needed before conclusive proof of this theory can be obtained.

mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 13, 2013 - 07:35pm PT
The real question then, is what in our culture causes us to tolerate violence at every level,

UK: 3.5 times the violent crime rate, 1/3 the murder rate.

It ain't cultural, access to killing tools makes all the difference.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jan 13, 2013 - 07:35pm PT
Was in the Cabelas in Grand Junction yesterday. They still have lots of ammo but are rationing 10 boxes per customer.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 13, 2013 - 07:43pm PT
I meant to say it isn't Uhmerikuhn ("our") culture specifically.
tooth

Trad climber
B.C.
Jan 13, 2013 - 08:16pm PT
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

2.1 million defensive uses of guns in the US each year.

11,493 gun deaths.





Remove guns from the good guys.





Gun deaths stay the same. 2.1 million incidences that turn into rapes or murders.






Net result!??? Violence rate increases to match that of the UK. Everybody Happy Happy Happy.

Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Jan 13, 2013 - 08:39pm PT
Was it written by the same people who wrote the 2nd?

Actually quite a bit of it was. The author extensively uses letters, speeches, minutes of meetings and so forth from the discussions and debates which led to The Bill of Rights.

TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jan 13, 2013 - 08:57pm PT
You have no idea where the bill of rights came from do you?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 13, 2013 - 09:04pm PT
ksolem - it is not tenable that the authors of the Constitution intended any of the amendments to condone illegal actions against the government at constituted.

Certainly one can pick language from the debate prior to the draft and the eventual words of the particular article, that seem to indicate that people should have the "right" so as to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, but if they meant that, why didn't they say that?

Now, choosing to have universal and unimpeded access to guns will result in those guns being used for their intended function: to kill.

That is plain and simple, you can say they are used as a deterrent, but the threat behind the deterrent is death, absolute.

The choice to continue to interpret the "right to bear arms" is a choice that essentially prioritize this right to unimpeded access against the deaths that are inevitable because of the access. I haven't seen an argument that counters that...

Once again, there is only one reason to possess fire arms, and as stated in the 2nd amendment, it is not the right to hunt game, but to protect "a free state," by the possession of a lethal force.

Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Jan 13, 2013 - 09:13pm PT
I guess Ed didn't read it either, or he would understand why non political uses of arms, and specific enumerations of arms were left out of the bill.

Now, choosing to have universal and unimpeded access to guns will result in those guns being used for their intended function: to kill

Please Ed, no one is arguing for "universal unimpeded" access to arms. This is far from the case today - unless you are a criminal and buy your guns on the black market - And the second amendment, in context with the others, does not guarantee such a thing either.
Messages 1521 - 1540 of total 5646 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews