If anyone wants to have a serious discussion on the Second amendment

[sexy-girl]

thanks PC i edited in the link to my above post

i guess though that law might still not stand up if it was brought to the supreme court

i still think there is enough room in the law that there should be independent (if thats possible) studies paid for by the government to find out if gun control should be tightened ... i don't think that people should be able to hide behind the 2nd amendment when in the supreme court they don't allow it to extend to individuals rights


im sorry sadnon mage if this thread didn't go the way you wanted it to that often happens with literotica ... but that is also the beauty of free speech

and im not jumping on the anti gun bandwagon what i say are my views and my opinions nobody elses


i will read problem childs article now ... i hope others will read the article i posted in my above post too


edited to say i haven't said in one of my posts that all guns should be banned (even though in my personal opinion i would like that) ... but i just think there should be independent debates and studies

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "A well regulated militia"

You're taking my very quick and loose example just a tad too seriously, I think. All I was referring to was relative military power, and it was a good analogy.

Thanks anyway though.

Probably so, but it is very misleading in the sense that relative military power was completely skewed by political considerations. Realistically, the Vietnamese would not have stood a chance if relative military power is used as a yardstick.

 

[SadnonMage]

Re: Re: Re: If anyone wants to have a serious discussion on the Second amendment

That all may be the case, but it is part of our constitution and as such is the law of the land. The constitution has an ammendment process to keep it current. If you really believe the 2nd ammendment is out of date, the way to deal with it is to repeal it by passing a new ammendment. Until that is done, it is the law of the land and any law passed by Congress or the states that infringes upon the rights of the populace to bear arms is unconstitutional.

And if you read The Federalist Papers, you will see that the 2nd ammendment IS an escape clause. It is in there to allow the people the means of overthrowing the governmant if it becomes tyrannical. There was such a big fear of a strong central government so soon after our revolution it was included in the Bill of Rights. If we no longer feel it is needed, then we, as a people, should pass a new ammendment repealing it. The problem with that is I think you would have a very hard time finding the 2/3's majority to do so.

True, and I think that most people would be surprised at the amount of democrats that would be opposed to it.

 

[Anne Waters]

I would guess the entire south and most of the west, both big Democrat bastions.

 

[Aquila]

For more reading:

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

Ishmael [/B]

Damn fine article.

 

[LordLucan74]

I Am a Past NRA member

and a former gun owner. I disarmed and left the NRA. I do not think people need to maintain weapons, especially stockpile them. There is simply no need. I am in no well regulated militia, I hunt my food in a store and the police may defend me from malefactors. Furthermore, I am not going to shoot someone breaking in to steal my VCR, DVD player or my TV. I have insurance.. I will go get more stuff.

 

[Laurel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: If anyone wants to have a serious discussion on the Second amendment

True, and I think that most people would be surprised at the amount of democrats that would be opposed to it.

And a "surprising" number of Republicans don't support the First Amendment, especially when it comes to topics like pornography.

So what's your point? Why the snide partisan stuff?

 

[Aquila]

thanks PC i edited in the link to my above post

i guess though that law might still not stand up if it was brought to the supreme court

i still think there is enough room in the law that there should be independent (if thats possible) studies paid for by the government to find out if gun control should be tightened ... i don't think that people should be able to hide behind the 2nd amendment when in the supreme court they don't allow it to extend to individuals rights


im sorry sadnon mage if this thread didn't go the way you wanted it to that often happens with literotica ... but that is also the beauty of free speech

and im not jumping on the anti gun bandwagon what i say are my views and my opinions nobody elses


i will read problem childs article now ... i hope others will read the article i posted in my above post too


edited to say i haven't said in one of my posts that all guns should be banned (even though in my personal opinion i would like that) ... but i just think there should be independent debates and studies

You can study an issue to death, you can keep studying and changing the parameters of the test until it suits your needs...



Gun ownership is just as about a fundamental a right as free speech.
How would you feel if I tried to pass laws against certain types of speech, because.. Just that one type of speech is ... not really what they meant by free speech.

Get the picture?

 

[SadnonMage]

thanks PC i edited in the link to my above post

i guess though that law might still not stand up if it was brought to the supreme court

i still think there is enough room in the law that there should be independent (if thats possible) studies paid for by the government to find out if gun control should be tightened ... i don't think that people should be able to hide behind the 2nd amendment when in the supreme court they don't allow it to extend to individuals rights


im sorry sadnon mage if this thread didn't go the way you wanted it to that often happens with literotica ... but that is also the beauty of free speech

and im not jumping on the anti gun bandwagon what i say are my views and my opinions nobody elses


i will read problem childs article now ... i hope others will read the article i posted in my above post too


edited to say i haven't said in one of my posts that all guns should be banned (even though in my personal opinion i would like that) ... but i just think there should be independent debates and studies

THank you sexy-girl.
I am only a little disappointed, but I have sparked some interesting conversation.

A lot of studies are in existence already, but you have to read them with the proverbial grain of salt. The sources will be 'prejudiced' because most of them are done by either 'pro-gun' groups or pro anti-gun groups.
There are a very few truly unbiased studies, and it seems that they become suppressed as soon as the findings support either side of the argument.

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: UK, also stands for unarmed Kingdom

that part of my comment was slightly overboard i admit

but what i meant is the way the NRA and such organizations won't allow any kind of debate on gun control and their policy of not giving an inch because of the 2nd amendment

that just seems to be against the spirit of free speech and free debate ... although they aren't breaking any laws of course so i should'nt of said what i did ... but they seem to embrace the second amendment and dismiss the first

I don't know why you think the NRA suppresses debate (which is what you are saying). The NRA's whole reason for existence is to promote the 2nd amendment by using the power of the 1st amendment.

They have publications where they argue their position, they are constantly arguing for gun rights in court, they have representatives that appear on television whenever they are invited, and they lobby intensely for laws in congress, and the support voters and try to educate them about the 2nd amendment.

They are the classic example of how freedom of speech and debate should work. They don't inhibit debate in any way...they are do as much or more to stimulate it as any other group in this country.

As for them not giving an inch on the 2nd amendment, they are exactly like the pro-choice crowd, or the staunchest defenders of the 1st amendment. They believe that if they start giving ground, then eventual all their rights will be eroded. They know there are people that are trying to totally dismantle the second amendment, just like there are those who are trying to dismantle parts of the 1st amnedment and 4th amendment.

They believe in the constitution, and are serious about it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

You can study an issue to death, you can keep studying and changing the parameters of the test until it suits your needs...



Gun ownership is just as about a fundamental a right as free speech.
How would you feel if I tried to pass laws against certain types of speech, because.. Just that one type of speech is ... not really what they meant by free speech.

Get the picture?

Hm. Constitutional interpretation is done all the time.

 

[Anne Waters]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If anyone wants to have a serious discussion on the Second amendment

And a "surprising" number of Republicans don't support the First Amendment, especially when it comes to topics like pornography.

So what's your point? Why the snide partisan stuff?

I suspect he was just pointing out that BOTH major party's platforms tend to be made by the extreme ends rather then the centerist majority. I don't think it was an attempt at partisanship or at least my participation in it wasn't. I'm a registered Democrat and I wouldn't vote for a repeal.

 

[LordLucan74]

thanks PC i edited in the link to my above post

i guess though that law might still not stand up if it was brought to the supreme court

i still think there is enough room in the law that there should be independent (if thats possible) studies paid for by the government to find out if gun control should be tightened ... i don't think that people should be able to hide behind the 2nd amendment when in the supreme court they don't allow it to extend to individuals rights


im sorry sadnon mage if this thread didn't go the way you wanted it to that often happens with literotica ... but that is also the beauty of free speech

and im not jumping on the anti gun bandwagon what i say are my views and my opinions nobody elses


i will read problem childs article now ... i hope others will read the article i posted in my above post too


edited to say i haven't said in one of my posts that all guns should be banned (even though in my personal opinion i would like that) ... but i just think there should be independent debates and studies

I have always found it curious that many hide behind the First Amendment to kick God, Jesus, Mary and Joseph out of our society.

( I don't mean you...You just made me think of this)

 

[sexy-girl]

You can study an issue to death, you can keep studying and changing the parameters of the test until it suits your needs...



Gun ownership is just as about a fundamental a right as free speech.
How would you feel if I tried to pass laws against certain types of speech, because.. Just that one type of speech is ... not really what they meant by free speech.

Get the picture?

according to you then its a fundamental right for an individual to own nuclear weapons also ... those are arms

and as i previously stated according to the supreme court the 2nd amendment doesn't extend to the individual

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

according to you then its a fundamental right for an individual to own nuclear weapons also ... those are arms

and as i previously stated according to the supreme court the 2nd amendment doesn't extend to the individual

Does this mean I have to give up my ALCM-N's?

 

[LordLucan74]

My Favorite Amendment is:

The Twenty-first Amendment. Now, I am having a cold beer. Anyone care for one?

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

At last the thread has perspective.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: All I have to say is...

I would also point this out: under the Articles of Confederation (the first US Constitution) did not mention a right to have arms. If that was so important a right or the reason we left the Empire, then surely that might have merited at least a footnote.

It did have a footnote. Most of the States that made up the original 13 refused to join the Union without the "Bill of Rights". They saw the flaws in the original articles of federation and demanded that the peoples rights be enumerated just so that there would be no doubt when debates such as this come up.

The "Bill of Rights" eliminated the 'assumptive' issues that weren't addressed in the articles.

re. "The Wilderness" statement. Not true. The original 13 colonies were well settled. The Indians were no longer a great issue there, nor was an attack by foriegn powers. (Although that was a consideration.) The excuse for defense against Indain attacks did not exist and later during the westward expansion these were territories at best. The early expansion didn't even have territorial status. So the constitution wasn't even applicable.

The fact that it is an individual right, not a collective right, implies that the use of that weapon is an individual choice based on circumstances and the applicable laws. One of the reason's that every state recognizes that right to self defense. Many issue right to carry permits now.

The historical precedents are all there for anyone that wants to research the subject. Most legal scholars now recognize the 2nd as an individual right. Even those that think it shouldn't be there.

The NRA:

Is a single issue organization. This is true. But like the ACLU etc. it too is protected by the 1st ammendment. The NRA has also been behind many programs related to the elimnation of crime, and the incarceration of those that abuse their 2nd ammendment rights. Their basic position is simple. The rights of the innocent should not be trampled on because of the actions of the guilty. The fact that someone breaks a law is not an excuse to punish the innocent. And perforce, a criminal is a person that disregards the law. The concept that a criminal will somehow obey a ban on firearms while engaged in breaking the law on, oh say, rape is ludicrous in the extreme.

Ishmael

 

[sexy-girl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: UK, also stands for unarmed Kingdom

I don't know why you think the NRA suppresses debate (which is what you are saying). The NRA's whole reason for existence is to promote the 2nd amendment by using the power of the 1st amendment.

this is why i said that i was going perhaps overboard with saying they inhibit free speech ... you're correct but i do believe the NRA has to much money and to much power over congress ... that is why i accused them of inhibiting free speech ... but like you said there very existence is because of the 1st amendment ... so i would argue for their right to exist but i don't have to like them ... and i dont


so i admit i was wrong about saying that

Does this mean I have to give up my ALCM-N's?

i have no idea what those are ... but yes

 

[Yankin]

i thought about bitching about guns

but i am to busy cleaning my assualt rifles and automatic pistols so i will let you guys have at it.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: UK, also stands for unarmed Kingdom

this is why i said that i was going perhaps overboard with saying they inhibit free speech ... you're correct but i do believe the NRA has to much money and to much power over congress ... that is why i accused them of inhibiting free speech ... but like you said there very existence is because of the 1st amendment ... so i would argue for their right to exist but i don't have to like them ... and i dont


so i admit i was wrong about saying that





i have no idea what those are ... but yes

ALCM-N= Air Launched Cruise Missle - Nuclear warhead equipped.

 

[Ishmael]

BTW, I have what some people would call an arsenal. Well over 20 firearms. Firearms of all types. Some are nothing more than collectors items. Some are for bird hunting, some small game, some big game, some for defense, and some for target shooting.

I raised my sons (as a single parent) and at each stage of their developement I bought them a firearm. First a .22, then a shotgun, then a high-power rifle, and lastly a pistol. Both still have their first guns and both still use them. One now has children of his own and plans on passing the practice down, even with the grand-daughter. I hope so. I'd like to think that she would have an effective recourse should someone ever attempt to rape her.

Ishmael

 

[LordLucan74]

Re: Re: Re: Re: All I have to say is...

It did have a footnote. Most of the States that made up the original 13 refused to join the Union without the "Bill of Rights". They saw the flaws in the original articles of federation and demanded that the peoples rights be enumerated just so that there would be no doubt when debates such as this come up.

The "Bill of Rights" eliminated the 'assumptive' issues that weren't addressed in the articles.

re. "The Wilderness" statement. Not true. The original 13 colonies were well settled. The Indians were no longer a great issue there, nor was an attack by foriegn powers. (Although that was a consideration.) The excuse for defense against Indain attacks did not exist and later during the westward expansion these were territories at best. The early expansion didn't even have territorial status. So the constitution wasn't even applicable.

The fact that it is an individual right, not a collective right, implies that the use of that weapon is an individual choice based on circumstances and the applicable laws. One of the reason's that every state recognizes that right to self defense. Many issue right to carry permits now.

The historical precedents are all there for anyone that wants to research the subject. Most legal scholars now recognize the 2nd as an individual right. Even those that think it shouldn't be there.

The NRA:

Is a single issue organization. This is true. But like the ACLU etc. it too is protected by the 1st ammendment. The NRA has also been behind many programs related to the elimnation of crime, and the incarceration of those that abuse their 2nd ammendment rights. Their basic position is simple. The rights of the innocent should not be trampled on because of the actions of the guilty. The fact that someone breaks a law is not an excuse to punish the innocent. And perforce, a criminal is a person that disregards the law. The concept that a criminal will somehow obey a ban on firearms while engaged in breaking the law on, oh say, rape is ludicrous in the extreme.

Ishmael

Some of this is completely wrong....South Carolina had "Indian Troubles" into the late 1780s.

In fact, South Carolina might have remained loyal to the Crown were it not for the Anglo-Cherokee Alliance, as alliance that the Cherokee Nation used to get British aid in their 1776 attack on North and South Carolina.

You are correct about the 13 vis a vis the Articles.

 

[LordLucan74]

BTW, I have what some people would call an arsenal. Well over 20 firearms. Firearms of all types. Some are nothing more than collectors items. Some are for bird hunting, some small game, some big game, some for defense, and some for target shooting.

I raised my sons (as a single parent) and at each stage of their developement I bought them a firearm. First a .22, then a shotgun, then a high-power rifle, and lastly a pistol. Both still have their first guns and both still use them. One now has children of his own and plans on passing the practice down, even with the grand-daughter. I hope so. I'd like to think that she would have an effective recourse should someone ever attempt to rape her.

Ishmael

I was robbed twice at gun point while in College working in a convenience store. In one of the stores, there was a gun. I was surprised by the thief, who looked normal, until he pulled out his pistol. In the second case, there was no gun but I would not have been able to use it as, again, the thief waited until I was preoccupied, and then pulled his weapon. Once the thief has the drop on you, there is no chance for you to get your weapon and even the odds. Again, I am not going to shoot someone over a little cash.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

I'd like to think that she would have an effective recourse should someone ever attempt to rape her.

Ishmael [/B]

A gun won't do it. I suggest martial arts.