Obama will take away your guns!

[Hugh Conway]

That was according to Focus on the Family. WHO KNOWS????

 

They were concerned pastors will no longer be sleeping with the boys?

[STP]

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.

 

my argument hinges on the first part, yours on the latter part.

The Right to Bear Arms is listed in the Washington State Constitution as an individual right but the collective right as applied to a non-governmental militia does not appear to be supported. So, does this mean that Blackwater can't operate here?

 

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

-- http://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Constitution.htm

 

Oregon:

 

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

-- http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orcons.html

[STP]

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."

 

No, it's not a simple issue at all. The second amendment is cryptic and ambiguous.

 

If the government ever decides to confiscate guns, despite all the bluster from blowhards like AKA, they'll just come and take them...and AKA and every other "cold dead hand-ites" in the country will just give them up...just like they've done fuck all while the government took away their privacy, habeaus corpus, and probable cause rights.

 

What, you're going give up your freedom, life, your family's life, and everything you own so you can keep guns you need to protect all of the above? I'm snickering over here.

 

Fuck you, blowhards. There isn't anyone in this fine country who believes your obvious posing.

 

I'm curious, purely hypothetical but if you could propose one significant but seemingly impossible policy change in this country that would have lasting financial consequence, what would it be?

 

You've expressed your dislike for the military before so might you propose the withdrawal of US troops based in foreign countries along with the abolition of a standing army in favor of a system similar to Switzerland's? ( The Swiss Report; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia)

 

Granted, this system would require compulsory military service for able-bodied citizens and would require the keeping of an automatic weapon in your home.

[olyclimber]

GAME CHANGER! OBAMA CALLED HIMSELF A MUSLIN SCARF, FREUDIAN SLIP! NEWS AT 11!

[Fairweather]

i thought it was chris rock!

 

hey, this conversation would have a lot more clarity if bill and the other so-regretably-labeled "gun-nuts" would answer the basic question: what weapons (if any) are you willing to allow the state to ban/restrict? surely you can understand why even non-liberals can't accept "none" right?

 

The status quo--as of today--is just fine with me. You OK with that? Which guns legal today do you think should be banned?

[Fairweather]

TTK is probably right about this. The vast majority of Americans would likely roll over re guns, leaving a very small minority to take the hit. Like I said before, the real power lies in the government's ability to pull your strings which is why maintaining these rights through political pressure is so important. Australia went through this over 10 years ago and pretty much everyone just rolled over-- although there were a few gun battles.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Fairweather

[el jefe]

i thought it was chris rock!

 

hey, this conversation would have a lot more clarity if bill and the other so-regretably-labeled "gun-nuts" would answer the basic question: what weapons (if any) are you willing to allow the state to ban/restrict? surely you can understand why even non-liberals can't accept "none" right?

 

The status quo--as of today--is just fine with me. You OK with that? Which guns legal today do you think should be banned?

 

how about all guns legal today have to be registered?

[Fairweather]

i thought it was chris rock!

 

hey, this conversation would have a lot more clarity if bill and the other so-regretably-labeled "gun-nuts" would answer the basic question: what weapons (if any) are you willing to allow the state to ban/restrict? surely you can understand why even non-liberals can't accept "none" right?

 

The status quo--as of today--is just fine with me. You OK with that? Which guns legal today do you think should be banned?

 

how about all guns legal today have to be registered?

 

Nope. What would the point of that be?

[JosephH]

The majority opinion in Gore v. Bush - it doesn't get any more activist (and anti-states rights) than that. Except possibly Roberts and Alito - two of the most activist judges ever appointed to SCOTUS and both staunch supporters of the Yoo Doctrine and unitary executive. In fact, it's not in any way a stretch to say they were both nominated solely because of their beliefs with regard to a unitary executive - something which could also backfire on the right. Two more appointments in their mold would pose a greater threat to our freedom than any external foe.

 

Also, as a side note, many conservative legal scholars are now calling Heller a mistake because the individual rights logic employed by the majority will likely now bleed over to protect Roe (yes, even despite the fact the founders made no mention of abortion...).

[el jefe]

i thought it was chris rock!

 

hey, this conversation would have a lot more clarity if bill and the other so-regretably-labeled "gun-nuts" would answer the basic question: what weapons (if any) are you willing to allow the state to ban/restrict? surely you can understand why even non-liberals can't accept "none" right?

 

The status quo--as of today--is just fine with me. You OK with that? Which guns legal today do you think should be banned?

 

how about all guns legal today have to be registered?

 

Nope. What would the point of that be?

 

why not? where's the harm?

[Fairweather]

I asked you a question. What is the point of registering guns with the government? Do you think this would decrease crime? Would criminals comply? Or would this simply enable the government to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens more easily? Again; what would the point be?

[el jefe]

why would the government need to confiscate your guns if they know where they are?

 

it would demonstrate that you aren't in possession of illegal weapons and make it easier for law enforcement officers to determine whether a weapon was used in the commission of a crime. if your guns are clean, then so are you in all likelihood. if not, then you've got some explainin' to do.

 

now, i've answered your question so you answer mine: what are you so afraid of? why not register them? you've registered your vehicles and the deed to your house, why not weapons that are potentially lethal to your neighbors and fellow citizens?

 

 

 

[el jefe]

for that matter, you've even registered your children -- i'm assuming they have birth certificates and social security numbers, that is.

[ivan]

a car is potentially a deadly weapon - they must all be registered, no?

[Fairweather]

Guns are traceable through the point of purchase. How would registering guns determine if someone was in possession of an "illegal weapon"? That's your most convoluted logic yet. Guns enjoy special protection under the constitution that cars don't. Simple as that. The fact that you and many of your fellow (so-called) liberals have an innate need to exercise control through government over every aspect of people's lives is clearly a mental condition. And the constitution only seems to be an issue when you find it 'convenient'. The intransigence you assign to gun-rights advocates is staring you in the mirror. BTW: You never answered my abortion corollary to your 'gun-nut' rant.

[AlpineK]

 

I'm curious, purely hypothetical but if you could propose one significant but seemingly impossible policy change in this country that would have lasting financial consequence, what would it be?

 

You've expressed your dislike for the military before so might you propose the withdrawal of US troops based in foreign countries along with the abolition of a standing army in favor of a system similar to Switzerland's? ( The Swiss Report; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia)

 

Granted, this system would require compulsory military service for able-bodied citizens and would require the keeping of an automatic weapon in your home.

 

Skiing at Zermatt a few years ago I watched a Swiss army group ski away from the gondolas and up Monte Rosa. Just from watching that I decided that mandatory military service for everybody could be

fun. I'd love to be told to do training exercises like that.

 

[img:center]http://www.zermatt.cz/pic/big/mountains_07_big.jpg[/img]

 

I'd say the chances of Obama trying to make guns illegal are 99.9999 against that actually happening.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

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."

 

No, it's not a simple issue at all. The second amendment is cryptic and ambiguous.

 

If the government ever decides to confiscate guns, despite all the bluster from blowhards like AKA, they'll just come and take them...and AKA and every other "cold dead hand-ites" in the country will just give them up...just like they've done fuck all while the government took away their privacy, habeaus corpus, and probable cause rights.

 

What, you're going give up your freedom, life, your family's life, and everything you own so you can keep guns you need to protect all of the above? I'm snickering over here.

 

Fuck you, blowhards. There isn't anyone in this fine country who believes your obvious posing.

 

I'm curious, purely hypothetical but if you could propose one significant but seemingly impossible policy change in this country that would have lasting financial consequence, what would it be?

 

You've expressed your dislike for the military before so might you propose the withdrawal of US troops based in foreign countries along with the abolition of a standing army in favor of a system similar to Switzerland's? ( The Swiss Report; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia)

 

Granted, this system would require compulsory military service for able-bodied citizens and would require the keeping of an automatic weapon in your home.

 

Since we currently spend 60% of our discretionary federal budget on the military, the obvious place to cut is that wedge of the pie. Here's how I would propose to do that:

 

1) Get out of Iraq.

2) Increase our efforts in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban and other terrorist groups, and stabilize that region.

3) Reduce our nuclear arsenal to a fraction of what it is currently, and resume leadership in worldwide nuclear disarmament.

4) Mothball several carrier battle groups.

5) Pass legislation to eliminate no-bid and cost plus contracts.

6) Yank a host of services from private contractors and give them back to the military.

7) Mothball a significant portion of a nuke subs.

 

Regarding gun control, it's not really a big issue for me one way or the other, although I'm abviously amused by the bullshit artists out there who claim they'll stand up against the gubmint when the time comes. From what I've read, the most significant change we could make would be to enforce existing regulation of federally licensed arms dealers, and, most importantly, eliminate those dealers who operate out of their homes without a storefront. It is this latter group who are responsible for distributing the lionshare of weapons that are eventually involved in crimes.

 

I have no problem, and see no problem, with licensing guns, just as I have no problem with licensing a car, boat, or other potentially lethal machine that operates in the public space.

 

The gun related issue I care most about, and the biggest problem in this country regarding gun ownership, is children getting accidentally shot. Unfortunately, the solution to that lies in the realm of personal responsibility. This type of accident, along with hunting accidents, continue to happen far to often; testiment to the fact that, despite the NRA's bullshit campaigns, far too many gun owners are far too careless.

[tvashtarkatena]

Guns are traceable through the point of purchase. How would registering guns determine if someone was in possession of an "illegal weapon"? That's your most convoluted logic yet. Guns enjoy special protection under the constitution that cars don't. Simple as that. The fact that you and many of your fellow (so-called) liberals have an innate need to exercise control through government over every aspect of people's lives is clearly a mental condition. And the constitution only seems to be an issue when you find it 'convenient'. The intransigence you assign to gun-rights advocates is staring you in the mirror. BTW: You never answered my abortion corollary to your 'gun-nut' rant.

 

The 2nd amendment doesn't prohibit licensing of guns. It doesn't prohibit restrictions on gun ownership. By way of example, the constitution wouldn't prohibit the government from denying gun ownership rights to convicted felons, just as it doesn't prohibit denying those felons voting and other rights.

 

A one time tracking system like point of sale doesn't take into account a change of status (Ex: someone who just shot up a liquor store) like a renewable licensing system does. If cars were licensed only at point of sale, you could have vehicles with no headlights spewing pure burning oil on the road. Not in society's best interest.

 

Abortion is a very different issue, because it must balance the rights of the mother versus the rights of the unborn. The issue of when the unborn attains independent 'personhood' is central, and there really is no other constitutional issue that is similar. The gun rights issue is a classic balancing of public safety with individual rights; there are many, many prior examples of this (smoking, driving, yelling "fire!" in a theatre, etc).

Edited October 26, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

i thought it was chris rock!

 

hey, this conversation would have a lot more clarity if bill and the other so-regretably-labeled "gun-nuts" would answer the basic question: what weapons (if any) are you willing to allow the state to ban/restrict? surely you can understand why even non-liberals can't accept "none" right?

 

The status quo--as of today--is just fine with me. You OK with that? Which guns legal today do you think should be banned?

 

I'm OK with the status quo, except I'd like to see more protections put into place to make sure that people who already can't buy weapons (felons and crazy people) really can't buy them. For example, that Virgina Tech shooter wasn't allowed to buy them, but he did anyway.

 

Fairweather, do you support simple background checks to verify that gun purchasers are not felons or mental patients?

[tvashtarkatena]

I wouldn't support policies that allow me to own a gun, for example.

[Lars]

If cars were licensed only at point of sale, you could have vehicles with no headlights spewing pure burning oil on the road

 

So if your car had no headlights and was spewing oil, the cops wouldnt need to pull you over and possibly ticket you...because your license already took care of that???

 

Wow, I had no idea.

[Bug]

Since we currently spend 60% of our discretionary federal budget on the military, the obvious place to cut is that wedge of the pie. Here's how I would propose to do that:

 

1) Get out of Iraq.

2) Increase our efforts in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban and other terrorist groups, and stabilize that region.

3) Reduce our nuclear arsenal to a fraction of what it is currently, and resume leadership in worldwide nuclear disarmament.

4) Mothball several carrier battle groups.

5) Pass legislation to eliminate no-bid and cost plus contracts.

6) Yank a host of services from private contractors and give them back to the military.

7) Mothball a significant portion of a nuke subs.

 

Regarding gun control, it's not really a big issue for me one way or the other, although I'm abviously amused by the bullshit artists out there who claim they'll stand up against the gubmint when the time comes. From what I've read, the most significant change we could make would be to enforce existing regulation of federally licensed arms dealers, and, most importantly, eliminate those dealers who operate out of their homes without a storefront. It is this latter group who are responsible for distributing the lionshare of weapons that are eventually involved in crimes.

 

I have no problem, and see no problem, with licensing guns, just as I have no problem with licensing a car, boat, or other potentially lethal machine that operates in the public space.

 

The gun related issue I care most about, and the biggest problem in this country regarding gun ownership, is children getting accidentally shot. Unfortunately, the solution to that lies in the realm of personal responsibility. This type of accident, along with hunting accidents, continue to happen far to often; testiment to the fact that, despite the NRA's bullshit campaigns, far too many gun owners are far too careless.

You bring up some great points here Tvash.

I always like the way you (often)present your opinion with clarity even if I do not always agree. It would be good if more people would do this instead of just spraying non-sensical boring BS.

I think the reality of the gun situation is that, the more controls and limitations you put on honest citizenry, the more dependant we are on the police. I don't like that. Regardless of what I like, criminals will continue to have guns just like they continue to make meth, import heroin, kidnap children, etc..

I have personally been in a situation where I was facing the probablility coming face to face with a certified nut job who had broken into my house and had previously stated that 5 evil demons were telling him to kill his own son, my step-son. I knew he had been on the streets for a year and guns are easy to get ILLEGALLY. So I was comforted by the fact that I was able to lock and load in order to defend my wife, two infant daughters, and stepp-son. If you think gun control would have kept this whacko from getting a gun then explain to me why he is able to buy other illegal substances.

As it turned out, the police got there and scared him off. But a few seconds later could have made a huge difference.

[Fairweather]

Fairweather, do you support simple background checks to verify that gun purchasers are not felons or mental patients?

 

The fact that you don't know these safeguards are already in place disqualifies you from further commentary on this subject. When you buy a firearm you are subject to an automatic FBI background check and, unless you have a CWP, there is a 3 to 5 day wait. The check does not include the serial number of the weapon and the record of the check is supposedly purged after 12 or 18 months. If the states can't keep track of mental patients then something certainly needs to be done about that. I can't think of anyone who wants mental patients with guns. How would registering guns solve this problem?

 

I'm gonna go ride my bike up Green Mountain now--TBC.

[ivan]

The fact that you don't know these safeguards are already in place disqualifies you from further commentary on this subject.

shouldn't the fact that you're assuming he doesn't know this disqualify you too?

[Fairweather]

The fact that you don't know these safeguards are already in place disqualifies you from further commentary on this subject.

shouldn't the fact that you're assuming he doesn't know this disqualify you too?

 

Since we were talking about "the status quo", no. Reading comprehension, Ivan. Try to follow along.