Obama will take away your guns!

[Fairweather]

Nope. It's an argument for 3 strikes laws and for bleeding hearts to shut the fuck up.

[WylDanimal]

I'm completely willing to give up more of my freedoms for the safety of Fairweather...

 

[Jim]

WTF are the gun nuts so sacred of anyway? Mother-killers and Father-rapers?

[prole]

FW's got stocks in the private prison building industry.

[Fairweather]

The Neocon's relentless attacks on the Constitution and Bill of Rights has not been resisted by the NRA or gun owners as a political group, but rather supported at every turn. I personally am not quite sure what to even make of it - gun owners as a group supporting the most systematic assault on the Constitution the nation has ever seen. What am I supposed to make of it other than to assume the majority of gun owners have to-date proven themselves part and parcel with attempts to overthrow the balance of powers so carefully designed by our Founders. It's really hard to come to any other conclusion but that gun owners as a class are easily manipulated and would likely be on the frontlines of any attempt by a nationalist, dictatorial Exective to sieze our government - and not on our side, but rather on the side of those siezing the government. If anyone thinks that's unlikely, think again, that's is exactly the scenario that played out in Yugoslavia/Serbia.

 

This is an even more ridiculous statement than your "epidemic" quip. If you're willing to honestly compare and contrast GWB to a large number of American presidents that preceded him in this regard, then go ahead and make this argument. Otherwise, you're just being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

[Fairweather]

I'm completely willing to give up more of my freedoms for the safety of Fairweather...

The second amendment is one of your freedoms, whether you exercise it or not.

[WylDanimal]

I'm completely willing to give up more of my freedoms for the safety of Fairweather...

The second amendment is one of your freedoms, whether you exercise it or not.

 

Twas in reference to your statement that since the government is run by liberals who want to leave criminals in the street you NEED your guns to protect your family, since nobody else is doing it right. I will keep and cherish my my freedoms, but find the open ended NRA ideology of what the 2nd amendment was written for is ludicris. State/City run militias were the idea...not any weapon for any person. Considering the one bastion of State-run militia, the "national guard" has been federalized, we have already lost the true sense of the 2nd amendment.

Edited October 24, 2008 by WylDanimal

[Fairweather]

I'm completely willing to give up more of my freedoms for the safety of Fairweather...

The second amendment is one of your freedoms, whether you exercise it or not.

 

Twas in reference to your statement that since the government is run by liberals who want to leave criminals in the street you NEED your guns to protect your family, since nobody else is doing it right. I will keep and cherish my my freedoms, but find the open ended NRA ideology of what the 2nd amendment was written for is ludicris. State/City run militias were the idea...not any weapon for any person.

 

The Supreme court recently saw it otherwise. Guess you know better, though.

[WylDanimal]

I've been eyeballing a seat on that bench...Maybe I should send in an application..

[Bug]

my solution's always been just ban everything BUT 2nd-amendment-origin-era muskets

 

Should your idea apply to the First Amendment too?

 

I don't completely agree with Bill or live under any illusions about small arms being effective against a tyrannical government. The real power lies in data bases and the government's ability to deny you a job, credit, health care, the ability to drive a car, etc. But let's face it: If the government did their job and protected law abiding citizens from the dregs of society--the same criminals that liberals seem so hell bent on keeping out of prison or off the electric chair--then this argument would be largely moot. My guns, for the most part, are to protect my family from the people my government refuses to lock up.

The cuts to fed funding of state Crime prevention and Capital projects under the Bush administration were the largest single cuts in prison funding over the last 8 years.

As usual, you swallowed his rhetoric and gave him another standing ovation.

Sorry buddy but I think you are pathetic.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Bug

[Fairweather]

Sorry buddy but I think you are pathetic.

 

This, coming from a guy who was living with his parents as recently as last year?

[ivan]

my solution's always been just ban everything BUT 2nd-amendment-origin-era muskets

 

Should your idea apply to the First Amendment too?

how do you mean? like not letting janet jackson whip out her titties on tv or howard stern using poo-poo language on the radio?

[prole]

Should your idea apply to the First Amendment too?

 

Once again the 1st Amendment and its merits stand in for the 2nd. Can it not stand on its own?

 

[mattp]

Until the last decision, the Supremes were saying that the 2nd Amendment DID NOT impart an individual right to bear arms, giving meaning to the first ten or so words of the Amendment. You (Fairweather) may proclaim that your interpretation is decreed by the Supreme Court, but although it is the current interpretation I'd venture a guess that it is only tentative at this point.

[Fairweather]

Until the last decision, the Supremes were saying that the 2nd Amendment DID NOT impart an individual right to bear arms, giving meaning to the first ten or so words of the Amendment.

 

You know this simply is not true. Please share the SCOTUS decision that you are referring to. The 1939 decision left it ambiguous.

[Fairweather]

You (Fairweather) may proclaim that your interpretation is decreed by the Supreme Court, but although it is the current interpretation I'd venture a guess that it is only tentative at this point.

 

Please explain. Is Obama going to somehow change it?

[STP]

District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) affirmed the interpretion of the Second Amendment protecting the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

ref--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

United States vs. Miller (1939) referred only to certain types of weapons. Used by some gun advocates to support right to use military type firearms.

ref--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

[Fairweather]

District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) affirmed the interpretion of the Second Amendment protecting the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

ref--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

United States vs. Miller (1939) referred only to certain types of weapons. Used by some gun advocates to support right to use military type firearms.

ref--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

 

Thank you. I'm still not sure what Matt is talking about, though.

[STP]

Ok, so why are most socially liberal Democrats in favor of gun control to the point of a virtual ban even though the right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated right in the Constitution?

 

Yet, when activist judges construe rights not enumerated but inferred, for example, penumbral rights such as the individual's right to privacy free from government intrusion, then they're all about what a great thing it is. [in principle, this penumbra right sounds reasonable although it has been used primarily in one particular way. The right to privacy is the basis for legal abortion.]

 

Are liberals trying to say that the ideas in the Constitution as it was originally written are outdated?

[mattp]

Yes, Miller was the lead case on this issue until 2007.

 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Do you guys think the first twelve words of the amendment have no meaning? I agree that it is not clear, and the Supreme Court has mostly sidestepped the issue but if you, Fairweather, are going to proclaim that "the debate is over" I think you may be disappointed. As much as STP may complain, the interpretation and application of our Constitutional interpretation IS an evolving matter. My guess is that STP likes it that way when that evolving interpretation conforms to his way of thinking. Did the founding fathers consider whether a fetus has a right to life? Is it really only the Congress who can declare war? Do those accused as terrorists have rights? Does internet discussion enjoy free speech?

 

We've argued about the meaning of the second amendment plenty of times but either way I don't think Obama is likely to try to take your Bushmaster "hunting rifle" away. I posted this in another thread where you subsequently posted but chose not to prognosticate about what you think Obama may or may not do if elected. What do you think? Is he going to push for broad changes in firearms regulation?

[STP]

No, as long as the desire for gun control exists then the debate will continue. As far as the interpretation of the Constitution, it’s more a projection of your bias in your perception of my beliefs rather than actuality.

 

Seems we’re looking at this with a microscope when perhaps we should be looking at the larger implications. You can see the historical trend and it’s been one that increasing sees the government fulfilling tasks and roles once assumed to be in the realm of individual responsibility. [Consider the Supreme Court’s ruling on eminent domain.] At face value, it’s a commendable goal but the State should not be elevated to Godlike status, in other words, it’s not there to take care of all of your needs. Because if it is, then you subsume your individuality and the State becomes a false Idol. Admittedly, this is religious imagery but valid nonetheless. There’s a saying that speaks to this: “The road to Hell is paved with bricks of good intention.” And for the atheist types, when’s the last time you reread ‘Brave New World’? The future will be sold to you as a ‘kinder, gentler world’ so we don’t necessarily see oppression as presented in Orwell’s “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever” but more likely as existential malaise where hedonism and psychological sickness prevail in the general population. Francis Fukuyama projected his thoughts into the future and spoke of a possibility where technological development would lead to the end of liberal democracy. So, the future could become a quasi-Feudal system of economic servitude to the upper class where the multitude exist to labor and contribute tax revenues to fund the grand projects (my words, not Fukuyama’s). And we’ll be thrown a bone every once in awhile to placate our yearnings (a credit line, for instance).

 

Psst...this is funny, check out this photograph of the Bank of International Settlementts in Basel, Switzerland ( ) But that’s enough flight of fancy…

 

Ok, I’m not a constitutional scholar but on my cursory understanding of the issue, a dual meaning can easily be extracted from the wording of the 2nd Amendment, or perhaps as you would put it, interpreting the spirit of the law as opposed to the (strict) letter of the law. However, even if you were to take the strict wording of the Amendment, you’d be hard pressed to deny the right of individual gun ownership.

 

As it applies to the defense of the united states in the newly fledged republic, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment has more to do with whether we should have a ‘standing army’ versus a ‘citizen militia’. In no way does the wording construe that the people do not have a right to keep and bear arms.

 

[STP]

Did the founding fathers consider whether a fetus has a right to life? Is it really only the Congress who can declare war? Do those accused as terrorists have rights? Does internet discussion enjoy free speech?

 

Good questions. Even though I disagree with Yoo's thinking about the unitary executive, I believe the roots of the current developments are actually in the wording of the original documents regarding the Executive Office and the President's role as Commander in Chief in times of national crisis (for related idea see Carl Schmitt's state of exception).

 

But then again, I'm no scholar or historian.

 

Here's another thing to misconstrue: Democracy, the Worst Form of Government Ever Tried.

Seems somewhat relevant in light of controversy surrounding the popular vote versus electoral college.

 

RE: regarding the Internet

[video:google]2764008898452438504&hl=en&fs=true

 

[akhalteke]

It is really quite simple: We are given the right to bear arms and I will continue to do so. I am a responsible gun owner and enjoy the recreational aspects of the sport, the historical aspects of the birth of our freedom as well as the personal protection guaranteed by my ongoing practice aptitude with a firearm. Simple as that. Good luck taking mine away; all I have to say.

[rob]

It is really quite simple: We are given the right to bear arms and I will continue to do so. I am a responsible gun owner and enjoy the recreational aspects of the sport, the historical aspects of the birth of our freedom as well as the personal protection guaranteed by my ongoing practice aptitude with a firearm. Simple as that. Good luck taking mine away; all I have to say.

 

I don't think it's that simple, at all.

 

What "arms" were you given the right to bear? Tanks? Artillery? What "arms", if any, are you willing to outlaw?

 

Should people be able to own nuclear weapons? Where does it stop? Surely you agree with some form of gun control, as I doubt many would argue that citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. So, where do you draw the line?

 

I don't think it's "simple as that."

Edited October 25, 2008 by rob

[el jefe]

gun nuts are just nuts when it comes to guns, so there's no point in discussing the subject because they aren't capable of being reasonable about it. they like guns and want their guns because they just like things that shoot projectiles and they aren't capable of conceiving of any situation where any limitation, registration or regulation of guns is or would be acceptable because they just like guns and that's the end of it. a pile of dead kids at an elementary school won't change their minds because they are impervious to evidence or reason when it comes to their passionate love of guns. thousands of people killed by guns every year doesn't change their minds or even raise the vaguest hint of a doubt in their minds because they just want guns. their arguments in favor of unfettered, uncontrolled gun ownership are just bullshit and it doesn't matter because those arguments aren't the reason why they own guns. they don't own guns because they are concerned about protecting everyone from potential government tyrany, they just like shooting guns and that's it, and any form of so called rational argument they use to justify their passion is just a verbal smokescreen. talking to inanimate objects is a more fruitful use of one's time than debating guns with gun nuts because they'll never give one millimeter of ground no matter how unreasonable they are being because they are just so in love with guns.

 

guns are for killing, plain and simple, and handguns are guns specially designed for killing humans.