A modest proposal for gun control
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2012, 08:08 AM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
It was written prior to the formation of a federal standing army, and the Supreme Court did not interpret the law as loosely until 1977.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2012, 08:18 AM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(21-12-2012 08:08 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It was written prior to the formation of a federal standing army, and the Supreme Court did not interpret the law as loosely until 1977.


There was no challenge to individual ownership prior to that time - it was understood by most to be individual. It was the anti-gun forces that required the Supreme Court to interpret.

The amendments use the word 'people' to mean individuals. Look at the other amendments.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-12-2012, 10:53 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
Wow.


I just watched Bloomburg get corrected.. . .by a ABC reporter on what a AR15 is and how it functions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2012, 03:02 AM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(20-12-2012 06:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-12-2012 01:32 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  And, as stated in the video, the amendment was not interpreted to encompass individuals, but State Militias. This would not have been a debate prior to 1977.

The 2nd amendment:





America
-Startin' em' young.
The Supreme Court has interpreted it as an individual right.

If you read the history of the discussions among the framers, it is clear that it is an individual right.
What about the individual right of those 20children that were killed to not be killed?

Why does gun ownership individual rights supersede an individuals rights to live in a safe environment?

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
22-12-2012, 08:22 AM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(21-12-2012 10:53 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  Wow.


I just watched Bloomburg get corrected.. . .by a ABC reporter on what a AR15 is and how it functions.
Link? Video? Please?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2012, 11:00 AM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2012 11:32 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(21-12-2012 08:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-12-2012 08:08 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It was written prior to the formation of a federal standing army, and the Supreme Court did not interpret the law as loosely until 1977.


There was no challenge to individual ownership prior to that time - it was understood by most to be individual. It was the anti-gun forces that required the Supreme Court to interpret.

The amendments use the word 'people' to mean individuals. Look at the other amendments.
The wording of the amendment is extremely vague, making the law elastic for future interpretation. I see a clause that says "Since militias are a necessity, allow people who are part of the militia to have firearms" and not, "Let everyfuck have firearms".

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2012, 11:15 AM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
Just throwing it out there that the US will not suddenly implode because people have tighter restriction on firearms.

Every other country in the world is surviving just fine without such liberal gun laws.

Plus my last post.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like earmuffs's post
22-12-2012, 11:22 AM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2012 11:31 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
My modest proposal:
  • Concealed weaponry is forbidden.
  • Weapons on federal property are forbidden.
  • Gun shows are forbidden.
  • The unlicensed, unauthorized, and/or online sale of ammunition is forbidden.
  • Depending on the type, size, and variant of the firearm, a reasonable limit on ammunition is required.
  • Once ammunition is discharged, spent casings must be returned to the the manufacturer.
  • When a firearm is used, the citizen is required to file a report and to attend a firearm safety seminar.
  • An annual week-long firearm safety class is required.
  • A single weapon may only be registered to a single family.
  • The weapon may not be more than a 5mm handgun.
  • The weapon's magazine size may not contain more than 17 rounds.
  • The federal police will monitor ammunition purchases (quantity and caliber will be logged), much like they monitor fertilizer purchases.
  • The weapon may not be semi or fully automatic.
  • The weapon may not be a shotgun or rifle.
  • The firearm must be registered by the local, state, and federal police.
  • You may not have a history of mental illness.
  • You must have a filed psychiatric evaluation before legal possession of a firearm.
  • The firearm must be locked inside a bullet-proof case.
  • The police must check annually for the possession of the firearm.
  • Justification is required for the possession of a firearm.
  • Weapons tax, ammunition tax, and discharge tax are mandatory, no exceptions based on income or economic class.
  • Personal transfer of firearms is forbidden.
  • Weapons may not be inherited via legal will. Upon the owners death, the firearm will be confiscated by state police.
  • If the weapon is found in the possession of another individual, with unlawful transfer, both the owner and perpetrator will be sentenced for an appropriate time in federal prison.
  • Hunting rifles must be rented at a designated hunting area, both the spent casings and the weapon are to be returned (issued casings will be counted).
  • An annual psychiatric evaluation must be submitted.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logica Humano's post
22-12-2012, 11:24 AM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(22-12-2012 11:00 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The wording of the amendment is extremely vague
Unfortunately, this is the case with many significant laws. For example, the first article of the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") says "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority." without clearly defining what "human dignity" is supposed to be. Important laws like this one or the second amendment shouldn't be subject to interpretation.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2012, 11:27 AM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(22-12-2012 11:24 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(22-12-2012 11:00 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The wording of the amendment is extremely vague
Unfortunately, this is the case with many significant laws. For example, the first article of the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") says "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority." without clearly defining what "human dignity" is supposed to be. Important laws like this one or the second amendment shouldn't be subject to interpretation.
I am aware of the reasons for the vague wording, so that they may be interpreted as the era progresses. There comes a time, however, that no matter the interpretation a replacement, revision, or removal of the law is necessary.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: