or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Showdown at the Supreme Court
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Showdown at the Supreme Court - Page 2

post #41 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

...the scenario you just described sounds a bit like a scene from any of a number of recent zombie movies.

Tell that to the OathKeepers and a whole load of other patriot groups who are preparing for martial law.

"In Pray's estimate, it might not be long (months, perhaps a year) before President Obama finds some pretext—a pandemic, a natural disaster, a terror attack—to impose martial law, ban interstate travel, and begin detaining citizens en masse. One of his fellow Oath Keepers, a former infantryman, advised me to prepare a "bug out" bag with 39 items including gas masks, ammo, and water purification tablets, so that I'd be ready to go "when the shit hits the fan."

When it does, Pray and his buddies plan to go AWOL and make their way to their "fortified bunker"—the home of one comrade's parents in rural Idaho—where they've stocked survival gear, generators, food, and weapons. If it becomes necessary, they say, they will turn those guns against their fellow soldiers."
~ http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #42 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Oh come on your a ping ping patriot! How are you going to stop a tyrannical government (aka Obama administration) with just that poxy little thing. You need to get serious, be a real patriot prepared every second of the day to defend liberty against healthcare reform. Arm yourself to the teeth with as many high powered assault rifles and grenade launchers as money can buy or your just a part of the problem instead of part of the final solution. And don't forget to buy an armoured supersize suv and put battering rams and a look out tower on it. I recommend at least one sniper rifle too, multiple shotguns and a nuclear fallout shelter.

Oh I'm going to do all that too but first I'm waiting for my Obama stimulus check to do it. I figure my share of that $787 billion dollars ought to buy all that and more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm not denying that owning a gun is a right. I'm calling into question to what extent it should be. You can't possibly claim that you aren't even allowed to reexamine the relevance of certain aspects of the Constitution, can you? That's why there's an Amendment process. That's why there's a Supreme Court to interpret how the Constitution is to be applied.

This is quite confusing. You note the process you were condemning for several posts. Isn't this the part where after we all note that exact procedure, you came in screaming about how the Supreme Court isn't infallible and how the pop wants to rape us with poison gas or something like that?

I'm having trouble keeping all the strawmen straight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Tell that to the OathKeepers and a whole load of other patriot groups who are preparing for martial law.

"In Pray's estimate, it might not be long (months, perhaps a year) before President Obama finds some pretexta pandemic, a natural disaster, a terror attackto impose martial law, ban interstate travel, and begin detaining citizens en masse. One of his fellow Oath Keepers, a former infantryman, advised me to prepare a "bug out" bag with 39 items including gas masks, ammo, and water purification tablets, so that I'd be ready to go "when the shit hits the fan."

When it does, Pray and his buddies plan to go AWOL and make their way to their "fortified bunker"the home of one comrade's parents in rural Idahowhere they've stocked survival gear, generators, food, and weapons. If it becomes necessary, they say, they will turn those guns against their fellow soldiers."
~ http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers

What exactly is the point in noting that this group exists? Should 300 million+ people forgo a right because of a group who has a Facebook page?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #43 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

What exactly is the point in noting that this group exists? Should 300 million+ people forgo a right because of a group who has a Facebook page?

Maybe you didn't read my earlier post. The point is that some of the members of these groups could end up killing, with their Bushmasters and whatnot a whole load of heavily armed police and guard. If that body count even approaches a couple of hundred, then you can guarantee that your right to own arms will be greatly diminished.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #44 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Maybe you didn't read my earlier post. The point is that some of the members of these groups could end up killing, with their Bushmasters and whatnot a whole load of heavily armed police and guard. If that body count even approaches a couple of hundred, then you can guarantee that your right to own arms will be greatly diminished.

Actually I can guarantee it won't because I don't suffer from exception is the rule reasoning. We should not give up rights for hypothetical problems either. This is always the way of the leftist though. All must kowtow and bow down to the needs of the weak. If one person makes a claim about their actions, we all apparently lose our rights.

I just found a Facebook page for a group that claims they will kill thousands of people by inciting people to violence with their speeches and books. Let's just toss that right away. I saw another group on Facebook that claimed they were going to take possible action on their own private property to work against other groups they have disagreements with and it might even become violent. Let's just solve that by ending private property.

The reasoning is terrible.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #45 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually I can guarantee it won't because I don't suffer from exception is the rule reasoning. We should not give up rights for hypothetical problems either. This is always the way of the leftist though. All must kowtow and bow down to the needs of the weak. If one person makes a claim about their actions, we all apparently lose our rights.

I just found a Facebook page for a group that claims they will kill thousands of people by inciting people to violence with their speeches and books. Let's just toss that right away. I saw another group on Facebook that claimed they were going to take possible action on their own private property to work against other groups they have disagreements with and it might even become violent. Let's just solve that by ending private property.

The reasoning is terrible.

It won't be hypothetical any more when some of these "patriots" gun down hundreds of police and don't say that won't ever happen when groups like Oath Keepers are out there. There are plenty of Joe Stacks brewing out there too. Imagine the death toll a few of them with machine guns could cause. IRS buildings, Obama rallies...

Look at the New Orleans gun confiscations during Katrina. If you think that government won't take your guns then your just plain wrong. And if these so called patriots gun down the police, I strongly advise you hand over your weapon or they'll shoot you.

Gun confiscations during Katrina- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #46 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

However as for swaying, those that think that Constitution is more like a concept tend to modify the understanding of it in whatever fashion they desire.

No worries, it's just a piece of paper after all.


Snark aside, on one hand I support it, but agree with BR and others who have posted about the relevancy of gun ownership Vs an off the rails Government. There haven't been many revolutions in modern times where the citizenry, armed or not, won out against a Government that had the backing of the military. (The military did NOT side with the citizens)

Does a "well regulated militia" include regulation of what type of guns you can own?

Why do we need new gun laws if we don't properly enforce the existing ones? Enforcement of existing laws in most states would do a great deal to deter gun violence.

No I don't own a gun, but do enjoy the right to purchase one to take to the range, or for home defense (if I felt the need, but if that was the case I'd move) if I wanted to.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #47 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

There haven't been many revolutions in modern times where the citizenry, armed or not, won out against a Government that had the backing of the military. (The military did NOT side with the citizens)

First, that should probably give us all great concern when our government's military gets ever larger. Second, the largest and most powerful military in the world seems to be having a devil of time with the "insurgents" in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Enforcement of existing laws in most states would do a great deal to deter gun violence.

You are begging the question.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #48 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It won't be hypothetical any more when some of these "patriots" gun down hundreds of police and don't say that won't ever happen when groups like Oath Keepers are out there. There are plenty of Joe Stacks brewing out there too. Imagine the death toll a few of them with machine guns could cause. IRS buildings, Obama rallies...

Look at the New Orleans gun confiscations during Katrina. If you think that government won't take your guns then your just plain wrong. And if these so called patriots gun down the police, I strongly advise you hand over your weapon or they'll shoot you.

Gun confiscations during Katrina- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you now seem to be making a pro-gun ownership case.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #49 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Context. Intent. Applicability. Obsolescence.

Things "righters" fail to understand.

But the SC will disappoint again and side with the righters on this one.

Some people just love the Wild Wild West.

If the free exercise of the first amendment is shaped by "time, place, and manner" considerations, it would seem that most "righters" (aka conservatives?) understand that the exercise of the right to bare arms is (and will be) similarly rule bound.

The right to bare arms, for example, does not necessarily mean the right to bare concealed weapons, or to bare arms in school classrooms. Nor does it mean that RPG's are necessarily a form of personal arms.

The key point being argued, though, is not a dispute over 'time, place, and manner' but over the proposed "reasonableness" test. The left anti-gun advocates want a test that permits the banishment of categories of firearms, as long some type of firearm is permitted (such as banning handgun and modern rifle ownership, but permitting single shot long rifle breech loaders). As long as it might have a "reasonable" basis or have a rationale, then denial of most of the right to own or bare arms might be deemed legitimate.

I don't think it will sell though. Kennedy is the swing vote and any test that would permit Chicago to ban handguns (the primary weapon for home defense) would not likely convince him. Most likely the court will back a standard protecting basic categories of personal arms, and permit 'time, place, and manner" regulations.

This is what the "lefters" don't seem to understand.
post #50 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

If the free exercise of the first amendment is shaped by "time, place, and manner" considerations, it would seem that most "righters" (aka conservatives?) understand that the exercise of the right to bare arms... (snip)

I support the right to bare breasts! Oh, and everything else... to me "commando" doesn't bring up a mental image of the Governator with a machine gun. And this is one believe my wife and I put into practice!

I definitely would support replacing the word "bear" in the constitution with the word "bare", as you have done in this post.
post #51 of 128
If you recall, the constitution was designed to be changed as the situation changes. But even as it stands, the "right to bear arms" does not mean every 18 year-old or convicted felon has the right to go and buy a bazooka without presenting ID. The "right to bear arms" lays no restrictions whatsoever on how to manage regulation of that right.
post #52 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If you recall, the constitution was designed to be changed as the situation changes. But even as it stands, the "right to bear arms" does not mean every 18 year-old or convicted felon has the right to go and buy a bazooka without presenting ID. The "right to bear arms" lays no restrictions whatsoever on how to manage regulation of that right.

I don't 't recall that the constitution was designed to be changed, other than through an amendment process. And the right to bear arms, means arms that can be carried. Bazooka's are not thought of as a form of arms, so I agree.

The real question is does the government have a right to banish handgun possession, even in the home? I think the Supreme Court will find that Chicago (et. al.) has violated the Constitution.
post #53 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It won't be hypothetical any more when some of these "patriots" gun down hundreds of police and don't say that won't ever happen when groups like Oath Keepers are out there. There are plenty of Joe Stacks brewing out there too. Imagine the death toll a few of them with machine guns could cause. IRS buildings, Obama rallies...

Look at the New Orleans gun confiscations during Katrina. If you think that government won't take your guns then your just plain wrong. And if these so called patriots gun down the police, I strongly advise you hand over your weapon or they'll shoot you.

Gun confiscations during Katrina- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Yes and it won't be hypothetical any more when genetically engineered super dogs turn on their master and begin using their newly acquired opposible thumbs to open all the doors, take all the weapons and kill us all.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #54 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I don't 't recall that the constitution was designed to be changed, other than through an amendment process.

LMFAO

New sig, ohyeah!

Quote:
And the right to bear arms, means arms that can be carried. Bazooka's are not thought of as a form of arms, so I agree.

Is that what it means? Oh, because it was defined so well... oh wait...
And I only said bazooka because it's a funny word. I could have said AK instead.
Quote:
The real question is does the government have a right to banish handgun possession, even in the home? I think the Supreme Court will find that Chicago (et. al.) has violated the Constitution.

I think they will too. That doesn't mean I agree with such a decision.

In the end, I think the only solution for protecting Americans from gun accidents, mental health and passion related crimes, and easy access to deadly firearms by criminals (after a period of arms collection and policy benefit break-in) will be by Constitutional amendment (i.e. the process by which our Constitution was designed to be changed).
post #55 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes and it won't be hypothetical any more when genetically engineered super dogs turn on their master and begin using their newly acquired opposible[sic] thumbs to open all the doors, take all the weapons and kill us all.

Damn I'd better by me some guns to protect me from da dogz! Or maybe some steaks laced with tranqs. Hey... maybe that would work against intruders.
post #56 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

First, that should probably give us all great concern when our government's military gets ever larger. Second, the largest and most powerful military in the world seems to be having a devil of time with the "insurgents" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well true, but the average American citizen doesn't have access to the former government's arms caches, 155mm artillery shells and other high order explosives to make IEDs from, and the financial, training and equipment backing of neighboring countries.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #57 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Damn I'd better by me some guns to protect me from da dogz! Or maybe some steaks laced with tranqs. Hey... maybe that would work against intruders.

No..no..no... you've got it backwards. Because I can imagine the danger of the dogs existing, we must strip away all rights that could allow them to be a danger to us.

Thus we have to ban all guns due to the dogs. We had probably better ban steaks and tranqs as well. You never know what those pesky dogs are going to do. Perhaps we should ban all science since that leads to the dogs. People might read books and learn about how to create the dogs so let's ban those too.

Isn't it fun to give up all our rights to hypotheticals?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #58 of 128
Here's a link to some gun facts.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

here are some excerpts:

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

homicide rate -36%
firearm homicide rate -37%
handgun homicide rate -41%

As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.
As of 1998, about 13% of homicides involve knives, 5% involve bludgeons, and 6% are committed with hands and feet.

James Madison was responsible for proposing the Second Amendment and was one of three authors of the Federalist Papers, a group of essays published in newspapers to explain and lobby for ratification of the Constitution.
In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison argued that a standing federal army could not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could not field more than 25,000 - 30,000 men. He wrote:
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."

"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."
post #59 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

James Madison was responsible for proposing the Second Amendment and was one of three authors of the Federalist Papers, a group of essays published in newspapers to explain and lobby for ratification of the Constitution.
In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison argued that a standing federal army could not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could not field more than 25,000 - 30,000 men. He wrote:
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."

"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."

Excellent post. There's the context. And it shows, quite clearly, that the idea behind the second amendment was to empower the citizenry to protect themselves from a military coup to overthrow the government.

Today, should the combined military of the United States of America collectively and decisively move to overthrow the standing US Government, do you think the handguns under our pillows are really going to help? Give me a fucking break.
post #60 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Today, should the combined military of the United States of America collectively and decisively move to overthrow the standing US Government, do you think the handguns under our pillows are really going to help? Give me a fucking break.

Alright then, since individuals owning guns does not present any real or tangible threat to the government or military of the U.S. (and since being afraid of the government an military is an irrational fear anyway) and since there are perfectly legitimate and reasonable reasons to own a gun for personal self-defense against crimes and violence and there are other legitimate and reasonable reasons to own a gun for hunting and since banning the legal ownership of guns doesn't actually prevent criminals from having guns and even if criminals don't have guns, this doesn't actually stop them from committing crimes, what are the reasons to prevent normal, average, law-abiding citizens from owning their own guns again?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #61 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Excellent post. There's the context. And it shows, quite clearly, that the idea behind the second amendment was to empower the citizenry to protect themselves from a military coup to overthrow the government.

Today, should the combined military of the United States of America collectively and decisively move to overthrow the standing US Government, do you think the handguns under our pillows are really going to help? Give me a fucking break.

Tonton;

If the idea behind the second amendment is to empower the citizenry to protect themselves from a military coup, and if handguns are insufficient, then you made a case that the right to bear arms must be broader than supposed - broad enough that millions of citizens are entitled to have access to more powerful militia arms.

Maybe you are (unintentionally) correct - after all, handguns are not enough. No doubt something on the order of of what Taliban and Iraqi insurrections use to keep the US military engaged should be legal, so according to the second machine guns, RPG's, IEDs, and even mortars and rockets are all protected.

Good point!
post #62 of 128
The "malitia" 200 years ago, refers to every able bodied male between 18 and 40.
post #63 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If you recall, the constitution was designed to be changed as the situation changes. But even as it stands, the "right to bear arms" does not mean every 18 year-old or convicted felon has the right to go and buy a bazooka without presenting ID. The "right to bear arms" lays no restrictions whatsoever on how to manage regulation of that right.

Managing the right is done every day in courthouses across the nation. You can't bring in the gun you own. They're not taking anyone's guns away, they're balancing the right in order to accomplish the protection of other rights. Just like your right of free speech in court can be abridged in order to allow your right to a trial. If you violate your right to a trial with an outburst of free speech you get charged with contemp of court.

What Chicago is doing isn't managing the right... they're taking it away entirely.

Sorta like managing free speech by cutting someone's tongue out.
post #64 of 128
"They're not taking anyone's guns away, they're balancing the right in order to accomplish the protection of other rights."

Good. So we can infringe upon one right to protect another, correct?

Is there a right for Americans not to be murdered? Seriously... is that one of our rights?

If it is, then it could easily be argued that in Chicago (and other jurisdictions), it was determined that the right to be free from being murdered was being infringed upon by the right to free gun ownership. One had to take precedent over the other.
post #65 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Alright then, since individuals owning guns does not present any real or tangible threat to the government or military of the U.S. (and since being afraid of the government an military is an irrational fear anyway) and since there are perfectly legitimate and reasonable reasons to own a gun for personal self-defense against crimes and violence and there are other legitimate and reasonable reasons to own a gun for hunting and since banning the legal ownership of guns doesn't actually prevent criminals from having guns and even if criminals don't have guns, this doesn't actually stop them from committing crimes, what are the reasons to prevent normal, average, law-abiding citizens from owning their own guns again?

Safety. As I said, ligitimate reasons or not, there will always be gun accidents, crimes of passion, crimes of desperation, crimes of insanity, to a degree that the benefit of gun ownership are often outweighed by the risks.

And by the way, before you try, you can't use a "driving cars" analogy because obviously the benefit of driving an automobile far outweighs the risks.

But you can use a drugs analogy. There are drugs whose risks outweigh their benefits. Most are illegal. There are drugs whose benefits outweigh their risks. Most are legal (marajuana, unfortunately, is not one of them).

Seeing as the constitutional right to bear arms against a military coup is obsolete, it would be up to states and municipalities to determine where the risk balance lay.
post #66 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

"They're not taking anyone's guns away, they're balancing the right in order to accomplish the protection of other rights."

Good. So we can infringe upon one right to protect another, correct?

Is there a right for Americans not to be murdered? Seriously... is that one of our rights?

If it is, then it could easily be argued that in Chicago (and other jurisdictions), it was determined that the right to be free from being murdered was being infringed upon by the right to free gun ownership. One had to take precedent over the other.

You have any rights, and yes, they have to be balanced... but never removed outright.

If you're murdered, you can be assured that the murderer will be prosecuted, if found, and the government will make sure there is funding to pay for the investigation. Your right to not be murdered is protected that way.

Your right to bear arms is also protected.

Your right to argue using reductio ad absurdu needs to be balanced against your right to remain silent, it seems.
post #67 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If it is, then it could easily be argued that in Chicago (and other jurisdictions), it was determined that the right to be free from being murdered was being infringed upon by the right to free gun ownership. One had to take precedent over the other.

Easily argued? Perhaps. Creatively argued? Definitely. Well argued? Not so much.

I could give you an A for creativity but an F for logic.

A more correct thing to say is that Chicago withdrew one of the means a person might have to defend themselves and their property against violence and therefore is infringing upon their right to defend their own life and property from attack or violence.

Add to that the practical reality that gun ownership prevention laws don't seem to prevent criminals from getting, possessing or using guns (only law abiding citizens) then your argument is weakened further because the law, in effect, is slanted against a law-abiding citizen's right to protect themselves and their property from criminals whose main intent is to violate other people's rights to their property and life.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #68 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

If you're murdered, you can be assured that the murderer will be prosecuted, if found, and the government will make sure there is funding to pay for the investigation. Your right to not be murdered is protected that way.
.

Oh, good, I feel so much better now that they will try to find and prosecute my murderer after the fact. It's unfortunate that I just had to be murdered to get the government to do something for me.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #69 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Oh, good, I feel so much better now that they will try to find and prosecute my murderer after the fact. It's unfortunate that I just had to be murdered to get the government to do something for me.

So, would you feel it's OK to punish someone before they commit a crime?

Since the right to bear arms is right up there with the others, it would just as egregious to someone's rights to throw them in jail before they commit a crime.

In fact, just go point someone out to a cop and tell him they tried to kill you. We're pitching rights out the window, so the right for someone to face his accuser isn't necessary, and let's just ratchet this baby up a notch and throw out trials with juries of one's peers too!

After all, rights are SO last century. We have the internet now! We can just post the charges and let perfectly arbitrary folks make the decisions!
post #70 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Oh, good, I feel so much better now that they will try to find and prosecute my murderer after the fact. It's unfortunate that I just had to be murdered to get the government to do something for me.

Isn't this exactly the point that gun rights advocates argue? That by taking away guns as a means of self defense, the government maybe left with only "protecting" someone's right to life after the fact by way of prosecuting their murderer? Whereas if the person did have a gun, they might have had a sporting chance to defense themselves and save their own life.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #71 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Isn't this exactly the point that gun rights advocates argue? That by taking away guns as a means of self defense, the government maybe left with only "protecting" someone's right to life after the fact by way of prosecuting their murderer? Whereas if the person did have a gun, they might have had a sporting chance to defense themselves and save their own life.

If handguns never were produced and mass distributed, I'd feel much safer if the criminals and citizens only had rifles.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #72 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

So, would you feel it's OK to punish someone before they commit a crime?

Since the right to bear arms is right up there with the others, it would just as egregious to someone's rights to throw them in jail before they commit a crime.

In fact, just go point someone out to a cop and tell him they tried to kill you. We're pitching rights out the window, so the right for someone to face his accuser isn't necessary, and let's just ratchet this baby up a notch and throw out trials with juries of one's peers too!

After all, rights are SO last century. We have the internet now! We can just post the charges and let perfectly arbitrary folks make the decisions!

Clearly that's what I'm saying. Of course. I couldn't possibly be saying that your reassurance that my murderer will be prosecuted is a fucking shitty consolation. How about you just make sure that my would be murderer doesn't have a handgun or a semi-automatic rifle? A hunting rifle will be much more difficult to conceal and far more unwieldy to use in tight quarters.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #73 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

If handguns never were produced and mass distributed...

Okay. Now back to reality...

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #74 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Alright then, since individuals owning guns does not present any real or tangible threat to the government or military of the U.S. (and since being afraid of the government an military is an irrational fear anyway) and since there are perfectly legitimate and reasonable reasons to own a gun for personal self-defense against crimes and violence and there are other legitimate and reasonable reasons to own a gun for hunting and since banning the legal ownership of guns doesn't actually prevent criminals from having guns and even if criminals don't have guns, this doesn't actually stop them from committing crimes, what are the reasons to prevent normal, average, law-abiding citizens from owning their own guns again?

Love it.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #75 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

"They're not taking anyone's guns away, they're balancing the right in order to accomplish the protection of other rights."

Good. So we can infringe upon one right to protect another, correct?

Is there a right for Americans not to be murdered? Seriously... is that one of our rights?

If it is, then it could easily be argued that in Chicago (and other jurisdictions), it was determined that the right to be free from being murdered was being infringed upon by the right to free gun ownership. One had to take precedent over the other.

How in the world are you drawing a straight line from gun ownership to murder? This is completely off the rails.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #76 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Alright then, since individuals owning guns does not present any real or tangible threat to the government or military of the U.S. (and since being afraid of the government an military is an irrational fear anyway) and since there are perfectly legitimate and reasonable reasons to own a gun for personal self-defense against crimes and violence and there are other legitimate and reasonable reasons to own a gun for hunting and since banning the legal ownership of guns doesn't actually prevent criminals from having guns and even if criminals don't have guns, this doesn't actually stop them from committing crimes, what are the reasons to prevent normal, average, law-abiding citizens from owning their own guns again?

So that only the outlaws will have guns?

But seriously, enact all the gun laws you want, unless there is a mass house to house roundup of existing weapons nothing will reduce gun violence in the US without a major cultural change.

When the country goes into a tizzy over 2 seconds of nipple slip during the Super Bowl, but allows movies like Terminator 2 and Goodfellas to be shown in the mid afternoon on a weekend through non-pay TV with almost no editing (just a brief check of the schedule) there is something very wrong.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #77 of 128
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #78 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)

What part of "obsolete" and "unlike the past, governments now have weapons that are impossible to defend ourselves against, so the issue of self-protection against military organizations is no longer applicable" do you not understand?
post #79 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

How in the world are you drawing a straight line from gun ownership to murder? This is completely off the rails.

Yeah, because guns are never used to murder people. How silly of me.
post #80 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yeah, because guns are never used to murder people. How silly of me.

Quote:
Results 1 - 10 of about 467,000 for baseball bat murder.

Results 1 - 10 of about 57,200,000 for beat to death.

Well, obviously we need to outlaw fists, feet and baseball bats as well, not to mention knives, ice picks, box cutters and others...
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Showdown at the Supreme Court