[split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-06-2016, 10:50 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(22-06-2016 09:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 04:43 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  We could let the Supreme Court have the power to rewrite the original intent as they wish, I suppose. That would concentrate the power in the US nicely.

That is not a permanent solution as the next Court could reverse it.

The only sure way to end the argument is by Constitutional amendment.

At that point the ardent gunners would stop citing the Constitution and just ignore it. They have a very weak grasp on how the law works.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2016, 10:54 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(22-06-2016 06:18 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 06:08 AM)morondog Wrote:  I think it's certainly worth taking into account, since the crux of the constitutional argument is that "well regulated militia" clause.
Keep in mind that if the Constitution didn't say what they think it says then it would be irrelevant to the ardent gunners.

I'm sure you skip original intent when it doesn't comport to your own predelictions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2016, 11:34 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(22-06-2016 10:50 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 09:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is not a permanent solution as the next Court could reverse it.

The only sure way to end the argument is by Constitutional amendment.

At that point the ardent gunners would stop citing the Constitution and just ignore it. They have a very weak grasp on how the law works.

That's a gross, and untrue, generalization.

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
22-06-2016, 11:40 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(22-06-2016 11:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 10:50 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  At that point the ardent gunners would stop citing the Constitution and just ignore it. They have a very weak grasp on how the law works.

That's a gross, and untrue, generalization.

Nope.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2016, 01:39 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(22-06-2016 09:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-06-2016 02:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Chas, let's be honest here.
Do you think people judged as meeting the background checks etc. should be able to do the following:
be able to freely buy machine guns? No.
be able to freely buy assault rifles? If you actually mean assault rifle, no. If you mean 'assault weapon', yes.
be able to freely buy large capacity semiautomatics? Yes.
be able to walk around "open carry" with loaded guns, near schools, in the middle of the city, anywhere they please? No.
OK, thanks for the answers. And for clarifying point 2. I did mean assault rifle. Point 3 was my question regarding the aspect of "assault weapon" which makes them more dangerous than some other guns.
Assault Rifle
Quote:"assault rifle", which refers to selective-fire military rifles that can fire in automatic and / or burst mode.

Assault weapon
Quote:Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms
The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud
...
the U.S. Justice Department said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2016, 01:48 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(22-06-2016 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  That was not my intent. I was trying to limn the argument by pointing out that there are extremists on both sides and they are in the minority - as counterpoint to 'many' since it was legislators who block legislation. So 'many' can't be all that many.
OK, sure. I'm not in US and I'm not in gun circles so I really have no idea how the differing gun enthusiasts sit on the bell curve. My exposure is newspaper headlines and discussion with people on the internet.
It's great that you point out, "well that might be a minority view", but please don't accuse me of strawmanning or doing anything underhanded in discussion. I'm offering my perception, (however flawed that may be). I'm trying to understand the real situation.

(22-06-2016 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  But is is the case that bad guys get guns regardless of laws.
This point would be a valid item for debate.

(22-06-2016 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  I apologize for the accusation of straw man as I misunderstood your meaning.
OK, we both jump on the attack when discussing gun control with each other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 05:07 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(22-06-2016 09:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  And Madison took the position of individual ownership in Federalist Paper #49.
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

A scholarly paper on the history of the Second Amendment.

Bolding and color mine.

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

Madison follows up Hamilton’s thinkng that the militia is “officered” and thereby regulated AND conducted by governments (read States).

This paper does NOT undermine the definition of a “well regulated militia” within the context of the Constitution or Hamilton’s Federalist Paper #29.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 09:18 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(23-06-2016 05:07 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 09:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  And Madison took the position of individual ownership in Federalist Paper #49.
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

A scholarly paper on the history of the Second Amendment.

Bolding and color mine.

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

Madison follows up Hamilton’s thinkng that the militia is “officered” and thereby regulated AND conducted by governments (read States).

This paper does NOT undermine the definition of a “well regulated militia” within the context of the Constitution or Hamilton’s Federalist Paper #29.

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

Militias are self-organizing, not instruments of the government, with their own arms and their own organization.
This paper does undermine the other.

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
23-06-2016, 09:30 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(23-06-2016 09:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 05:07 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Bolding and color mine.

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

Madison follows up Hamilton’s thinkng that the militia is “officered” and thereby regulated AND conducted by governments (read States).

This paper does NOT undermine the definition of a “well regulated militia” within the context of the Constitution or Hamilton’s Federalist Paper #29.

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

Militias are self-organizing, not instruments of the government, with their own arms and their own organization.
This paper does undermine the other.
Sounds like rabble to me. People who refuse to obey the laws of the land would band together to ... smoke pot and drink beer like they did in Oregon I guess.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 09:17 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(21-06-2016 12:51 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  The GOP/NRA position on guns is bullshit. Just like claiming evolution is false is bullshit. Just like claiming the earth is flat is bullshit...

I note that GOP senators Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, and Rob Portman stand firmly with the National Rifle Association on the latest (sadly) inauspicious attempts at gun control in the US. I wonder why... not. And these three turnip-heads also enabled the defeat of a Democratic-sponsored bill to close gun show loopholes and expand background checks for gun purchasers.

Payola talks in politics.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: