gun rights in Iraq

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You certainly are keeping your cards close to the vest. If you think the right to own guns goes deeper than mere words on paper, you haven't given any justification, besides "I personally believe". Why wouldn't I imply simplistic reasoning to that?

 

if the US were in as much chaos as Iraq, you don't think civil rights would be curtailed drastically? martial law imposed? the national guard deployed, etc?

[archenemy]

 

Apparently, your experience with and knowledge of our legal system is distinctly different from mine.

In order to become law, that item goes through a great deal of process and challenge. In order to remain a law, it goes through many, many challenges and is refined as we go. Our laws exist for a reason, not for the mere practise of the language.

 

 

 

i am sure the same due process exists in a country called Iraq.

I've never been there and I know nothing about thier system. I do know something about our system and I do know where I stand on how much influence we should have on another government. I made no mention of the legal process in Iraq so please don't link what I am saying about our system to thiers.

Edited March 26, 2008 by archenemy

[archenemy]

You certainly are keeping your cards close to the vest. If you think the right to own guns goes deeper than mere words on paper, you haven't given any justification, besides "I personally believe". Why wouldn't I imply simplistic reasoning to that?

What are you talking about? I am hardly being guarded in my opinion. To recap:

1. I do not think law is mere words. I think it is a reflection of what we as a society have decided appropriate for us. So gun ownership is legal and I agree that it should remain so.

2. Because of reason 1, I do not have to justify my right to own a gun to you or to anyone else; however

3. I told you I enjoy shooting and hunting. I don't need to justify these persuits any more than I have to justify the fact that I climb.

[Peter_Puget]

Chuck -

 

If the US was fighting a war on its soil would suspension of certain “constitutional rights” be considered legal by the Supreme Court?

 

 

Just a question.

[kevbone]

their government. That is their responsibility, not ours.

 

You make it sound so easy.

[chucK]

Did they make guns illegal in the South after their defeat in the Civil War? I truthfully do not know. Would you support that though?

 

How about if, say LA goes up in flames after the assassination of a presidential candidate. Police can't quell violence for a week. Would you support a decree having everyone give up there guns?

 

What about a less stringent case? What about Washington D.C. an urban area with a very high rate of violent crime. Would you support gun restriction meant to quell violence and help the police gain control of the situation?

 

Where does the slope get slippery?

[kevbone]

 

you don't think civil rights would be curtailed drastically?

 

It already is.....ever heard of Habis Corpus? Or illegal wire tapping....

[chucK]

Of course you don't have to justify anything to me. I am still asking a question. If you don't want to answer just don't post.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Did they make guns illegal in the South after their defeat in the Civil War? I truthfully do not know. Would you support that though?

 

How about if, say LA goes up in flames after the assassination of a presidential candidate. Police can't quell violence for a week. Would you support a decree having everyone give up there guns?

 

What about a less stringent case? What about Washington D.C. an urban area with a very high rate of violent crime. Would you support gun restriction meant to quell violence and help the police gain control of the situation?

 

Where does the slope get slippery?

 

as per your last example, aren't guns already illegal in D.C.?

 

as to your general question, I might, in the case of civil unrest/mass rioting, support draconian measures like shooting on sight anyone with a firearm in public (as opposed to in the comfort of your home).

 

[archenemy]

No, guns were not made illegal after the war.

 

The Supreme Court must go through the ratification process to amend the constitution, which would include suspension as far as I can see.

 

Remember that state rights to change laws are what are protected in the Constitution; so their laws, as long as they are not in direct conflict with the Constitution, are acceptable. Suspensions may be included in this.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

you don't think civil rights would be curtailed drastically?

 

It already is.....ever heard of Habis Corpus? Or illegal wire tapping....

 

Tell us all about Habis Corpus, boner.

[glassgowkiss]

their government. That is their responsibility, not ours.

 

You make it sound so easy.

 

not easy, but stupid. as an occupational authority it is the us government, who implements the law.

[archenemy]

Of course you don't have to justify anything to me. I am still asking a question. If you don't want to answer just don't post.

Why do you keep acting as if I am not answering your questions when that is exactly what I am doing. I have posted a reply to every single point and question you have raised. I feel confident that I can express myself, but I am not so confident of your ability to listen. Please disabuse me of this notion.

[chucK]

Peter, is that a question of me or of the Supreme court? Though I understand a lot of their decisions I certainly don't understand all of them. Not sure I could predict what they would consider legal.

 

If you are asking me whether the supreme court "should" be able to restict rights in a time of war, I think that's fine.

 

I still don't know how gun rights advocates would feel about that vis-a-vis their guns though. I'd guess (though of course, I do not presume to speak for Archenemy) that they would be even more reluctant to lay down their arms if open warfare were going on inside the US. See my post above.

[kevbone]

 

you don't think civil rights would be curtailed drastically?

 

It already is.....ever heard of Habis Corpus? Or illegal wire tapping....

 

Tell us all about Habis Corpus, boner.

 

 

Here you go.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

you don't think civil rights would be curtailed drastically?

 

It already is.....ever heard of Habis Corpus? Or illegal wire tapping....

 

Tell us all about Habis Corpus, boner.

 

 

Here you go.

 

Man, you are dense. And humorless.

[archenemy]

Did they make guns illegal in the South after their defeat in the Civil War? I truthfully do not know. Would you support that though?

 

How about if, say LA goes up in flames after the assassination of a presidential candidate. Police can't quell violence for a week. Would you support a decree having everyone give up there guns?

 

What about a less stringent case? What about Washington D.C. an urban area with a very high rate of violent crime. Would you support gun restriction meant to quell violence and help the police gain control of the situation?

 

Where does the slope get slippery?

 

as per your last example, aren't guns already illegal in D.C.?

 

as to your general question, I might, in the case of civil unrest/mass rioting, support draconian measures like shooting on sight anyone with a firearm in public (as opposed to in the comfort of your home).

Remember that not allowing guns into a specific area is different than not allowing people to own guns. I don't know of states that don't allow people to own their weapons. Washington DC, of course, is not a state so it gets to play by a couple of different rules.

 

Martial law is, of course, necessary on occasion. The conditions under martial law temporarily replaces regular justice process but is not intended to have any lasting effect on the actual legal system.

[kevbone]

 

you don't think civil rights would be curtailed drastically?

 

It already is.....ever heard of Habis Corpus? Or illegal wire tapping....

 

Tell us all about Habis Corpus, boner.

 

 

Here you go.

 

Man, you are dense. And humorless.

 

Good times eh? So I misspelled it! Woot Woot…….You have heard of it right? You make assumptions that there is no loss of civil rights here in the USA……I call you on that….

 

[chucK]

Archenemy,

Can you summarize at least a few of the reasons that you think the gun ownership thing is more than mere words on a piece of paper. I honestly don't see any reasoning in your posts on this point other than

 

In order to become law, that item goes through a great deal of process and challenge. In order to remain a law, it goes through many, many challenges and is refined as we go. Our laws exist for a reason, not for the mere practise of the language.

 

[and ...]

 

I personally believe that there is a lot to it and that one should have a full understanding not only of their own beliefs but of their society's beliefs for it is these by which we must abide.

 

Those don't tell my why you think so, but just what you think.

 

 

I'm most interested in what reasons there are that should give us these rights while denying them to others.

 

[archenemy]

Peter, is that a question of me or of the Supreme court? Though I understand a lot of their decisions I certainly don't understand all of them. Not sure I could predict what they would consider legal.

 

If you are asking me whether the supreme court "should" be able to restict rights in a time of war, I think that's fine.

 

I still don't know how gun rights advocates would feel about that vis-a-vis their guns though. I'd guess (though of course, I do not presume to speak for Archenemy) that they would be even more reluctant to lay down their arms if open warfare were going on inside the US. See my post above.

The Supreme Court does not have the power to declare martial law. The Congress does that, just as they are the ones to officially declare war.

[archenemy]

Archenemy,

Can you summarize at least a few of the reasons that you think the gun ownership thing is more than mere words on a piece of paper. I honestly don't see any reasoning in your posts on this point other than

 

In order to become law, that item goes through a great deal of process and challenge. In order to remain a law, it goes through many, many challenges and is refined as we go. Our laws exist for a reason, not for the mere practise of the language.

 

[and ...]

 

I personally believe that there is a lot to it and that one should have a full understanding not only of their own beliefs but of their society's beliefs for it is these by which we must abide.

 

Those don't tell my why you think so, but just what you think.

 

 

I'm most interested in what reasons there are that should give us these rights while denying them to others.

Is anyone else finding it difficult to gleen my opinion from what I have posted on this thread? I just can't believe that I haven't made it clear what I believe and why both in relationship to gun ownership and to our legal system.

[kevbone]

The Supreme Court does not have the power to declare martial law.

 

The Supreme Court can do what ever they want....kind of like a cop that pulls you over.....

 

The Supreme Court put Bush in office....

[archenemy]

Oh, and I am NOT DENYING gun ownership to anyone. Please reread my posts. I said clearly that I don't think we should step in on this process in other countries.

[Peter_Puget]

Peter, is that a question of me or of the Supreme court? Though I understand a lot of their decisions I certainly don't understand all of them. Not sure I could predict what they would consider legal.

 

If you are asking me whether the supreme court "should" be able to restict rights in a time of war, I think that's fine.

 

I still don't know how gun rights advocates would feel about that vis-a-vis their guns though. I'd guess (though of course, I do not presume to speak for Archenemy) that they would be even more reluctant to lay down their arms if open warfare were going on inside the US. See my post above.

 

Chuck - the question is quite simple. I will post it again.

 

If the US was fighting a war on its soil would suspension of certain “constitutional rights” be considered legal by the Supreme Court?

 

 

Below I have slightly modified your interpretation of my question.

 

Chuck - the supreme court "should" be able to restict rights in a time of war, right?

 

Are these two questions the same?

 

Edited March 26, 2008 by Peter_Puget

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Is anyone else finding it difficult to gleen my opinion from what I have posted on this thread? I just can't believe that I haven't made it clear what I believe and why both in relationship to gun ownership and to our legal system.

 

You have been crystal clear.