posted on November 8, 2002 11:17:38 AM new
Since WHEN has a Constitutional right not been subject to regulation ? There are not now and have never been absolute rights under the Constitution. All rights have limits, even in a free and open society. Some limits were placed on firearms such as full auto machine guns, which are heavily regulated. It hasn't stopped law abiding citizens from owning full auto machine guns, nor have those legally possessed been confiscated.
I don't understand the Nazi/Hitler argument about gun regulation, what does it have to do with gun regulation in a democracy?
Guns were heavily regulated and private ownership was not allowed in the USSR, now Russia is a democracy. So we might argue that gun regulation leads to more freedom ?? The gun lobby used to point to the USSR regarding the gun registration/confiscation issue, butthey don't anymore, now they use Hitler.
I have not suggested that guns be outlawed, but regulated even more so than cars.
It is against the law for me not to have liability insurance for my car. The same should apply to gun ownership.
If I transfer ownership of my car, it must be reported to the state and placed into a database that can be accessed by ALL law enforcement nationwide directly or indirectly. Same should apply to guns.
I must clearly display the license of my car. Everyone that owns a firearm should have a license for that firearm.
By the way- I also love French wine and Italian cooking, should I move France or Italy ?
There are many African countries where evey nut that wants a gun can get one and they slaughter each other dailey, why don't you guntards move there ?
[ edited by Reamond on Nov 8, 2002 11:20 AM ]
posted on November 8, 2002 12:27:31 PM new
REAMOND:
>Regulating a right is not the loss of a right.
Not strictly speaking; that is, until "regulating" begins to determine Who Can and Who Can't own a firearm. The Second Amendment says it in a way that can be no clearer than it is written, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That means that no law or rule shall be established that denies ANYBODY from the right to OWN a firearm -- and that includes Criminals, Felons, Murders, Rapists, etc. Please note that I did not say that they had a right to carry them around in public, but Home Defense is the Right of all men! And once they got felons to be excluded, then the list began to expand! Next came those convicted of domestic violence, then the list began to extend in all directions. Then Gore lost the election and this nonsense was over with until recently in this last election period.
posted on November 8, 2002 12:47:42 PM new
What did they need the guns for, to display their power? Yes, it is frightening to see government workers proudly display their power!
Glad to see someone stand up against this poor taste of expression. If the "People" had a Honor Ceromony with guns, that would make me proud.
posted on November 8, 2002 01:00:10 PM new
You don't have a right to own a printing press or a newspaper. Even publishers do not have an absolute right to publish anything they want. Native Americans are denied certain traditional worship exercises. Felons are not allowed to vote.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" does not apply to any particular person from being regulated in firearm possession. It is a general abmonition against a blanket application of disarming the public, and it is well argued that it would apply to the public only as associated with a well regulated militia.
If the govt could not completely take rights away for criminal behavior, then it could not imprison or levy any punishment or regulation upon the criminal.
If the Constitution prevents the govt from disarming felons, then it could not prevent a child molester from working at a pre-school, after all we have a Constitutional right to freedom of contract for our labor.
posted on November 8, 2002 01:20:58 PM new
But the again, the government has no right to tell us what to do if the "People" don't want them to. It's a government of the people, for the people, not of the government, for the government.
One simple fact has been proven in history, government doesn't work. Lincoln said when the government stops doing what we want it to do, we should abolish it. The governent is awarding 28 Billion Dollars to one person because she smoked and didn't know it was harmful; they let a murderer get loose because he has a good lawyer who can brainwash the jury; a Felon can't vote depsite that the felon doesn't like our system that got him thrown in prison in the first place, and so forth.
It's a broken system, and if need be I will vote with my dollars.
posted on November 8, 2002 02:30:10 PM new
>"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" does not apply to any particular person from being regulated in firearm possession. It is a general abmonition against a blanket application of disarming the public,
REAMOND, to use your own reasoning, a "blanket application" need not come all at one. like a strange meal, it is best digested when applied in small amounts. Or, as the famous quote goes:
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas : "As nightfall does not come at once,neither does oppression. It is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight- lest we become victims of the darkness."
Eternal Vigilance guards the Door to Freedom! This means to guard against ANY intrusion by the government in where it does not belong. No other part of the Bill of Rights states so clearly what is acceptable and what is not acceptable when it comes to owning firearms. It says that no one will be made to disarm. Peroid. Just because we have freedom of the press and no absolute right to printing presses is not the same thing as "Shall Not Be Infringed."
Surely, law about guns and its uses can and are regulated. Murder by gunfire is against the law, carrying a concealed handgun in public without a permit is also against the law, ammunition and gun types can be denied; such as, machine guns and assault weapons. But that is clearly not the same as making someone unable to possess ANY kind of firearm whasoever!
FACT: "Tyranny cannot exist in a well armed populus!"
posted on November 9, 2002 01:10:32 PM new
I am not anti-gun. I think that guns are a good thing. But too many of the wrong people are ALLOWED to have them. There are people out there whom you do not want even with a sharpened pencil, who are allowed to have guns. Released Psychotics can get guns. It is illegal, but it is also against the law to let anyone know for any reason that the individual is a released Psycho.
But for all of you who still believe in the unrestricted sale of guns, I would like you to let two of our residents move in as your neighbors....
THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD
Brian....
He was once committed, but was eventually released because he was not an IMMEDIATE danger to himself or others. He is not allowed to own handguns, but he can get shotguns and rifles, which he does. His firm belief....nobody has any reason to knock on his appartment door after 10:00pm. So he always has a shotgun by his side and brags that he will empty it through the door before opening it. AND HE IS SERIOUS!!!! Someday his sister is going to give him a suprise visit and she and her husband and children are going to be dead...
But he only the student of his mentor.....
Walter....
A real character and gun nut. He was also a NG armorer. Awhile back his mother died and he went into a deep depression. For some reason the police finally raided his apartment. It was apparently very unbelievable what they found AND WHAT HE WAS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO OWN!
Fully automatic Weapons of all types AK's, M16, M2 .50 caliber MG (collector's license).
And so much ammo for these items the apartment floor sagged and the walls were pulling away from the ceiling. But he also had full body armor which had been recently acquired. In addition to these legal items, he had LAW's (Light Anti-tank Weapons), Grenades(fragmentation and M203-type), Grenade Launchers, Anti-personnel mines and there was the rumor of him having a few stinger missiles.(Just warms the cockles of the NRA'S black heart, doesn't it) He was prepping for SOMETHING! Turns out that alot of it was stolen from the NG(makes ya' feel real secure, doesn't it) so it is kept real quiet and he "went away".
Now I assume that someday he will be released when he is no longer am IMMEDIATE danger to himself and others and he will need a place to live. Because his "student" Brian is still here, he might want to come back here, but if you Gun nuts want him to live in YOUR neighborhood with YOUR wife and children, I will be happy to give him your address...
Oh yes, it is still rumored that Walter has much, much more buried in the area's wooded area so he can fully "rearm" himself when he gets back.
.................................................
I live in my own little world, but it is Okay...They know me here.
[ edited by mlecher on Nov 9, 2002 01:13 PM ]
posted on November 10, 2002 01:25:20 PM new
Why mlecher, Walter and Brian are NRA poster boys and life members and are protecting our freedom.
These two are stock piling weapons to defend freedom from our tyranical govt.
Now, I would even buy into the NRA's arguments of protecting liberty if they apply the "well regulated militia" part, but they don't.
What we have are thousands of Walters and Brians, and Malvos and Mohammedas out there armed to the teeth, and they all have different ideas of just what tyranny is. And as you pointed out, some think that knocking on their door at 10:00PM is a threat.
posted on November 10, 2002 01:38:19 PM new
Ok here's the stupid question. How many persons are murdered/and or killed accidently each year in the United states by guns (pistols or otherwise)? It's not a loaded (excuse the pun) question, I just want to really know what the number is on an average each year. I emailed the NRA, cant seem to tell me, I emailed a couple of left wing sites, dont seem to know. Anybody know where those stats are?
Firearm mortality
In 2000 a total of 28,663 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States(tables18 and 19). This number was 0.7 percent lower than the 28,874 deaths in 1999. Firearm suicide and homicide, the two major component causes, accounted for 57.9 and 37.7 per-cent, respectively, of all firearm injury deaths in 2000. The other components—firearm accidents, firearm injuries of undetermined intent, and legal intervention involving firearms—accounted for 2.7, 0.8, and 0.9 percent, respectively. Among those aged 19 years and under, the number of firearm deaths was 10.1 percent lower than in 1999. Despite the decrease, in 2000 those aged 19 years and under accounted for 10.6 percent of all firearm deaths.
Of the firearm injury deaths in 2000, 52.9 percent were non-Hispanic white males, 21.6 percent were non-Hispanic black males, 10.1 percent were non-Hispanic white females, 2.7 percent were non-Hispanic black females, 9.0 were Hispanic males, and 1.1 were His-panic females(table19). The largest numbers of firearm deaths for males were for the age groups 15–19 years, 20–24 years, and 25–29 years; the largest numbers of firearm deaths for females were for the age groups 30–34 years, 35–39 years, and 40–44 years.
In 2000 the age-adjusted death rate for firearm injuries was 10.4 deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population, 1.9 percent lower than the rateof 10.6in 1999(table22).In 2000 the rate for males was 6.4 times that for females, the rate for the black population was2 times that of the white population, and the rate for the non-Hispanic population was 1.2 times that of the Hispanic population(tables 22 and 23).
posted on November 11, 2002 01:03:55 PM new
Folks, please don't thinks I've been ignoring you. I was working this past weekend @ what the liberals would consider a disaster waiting to happen. Yes I was at a GUN SHOW. As soon as I catch up on paperwork, I'll be back in the thick of the action...
posted on November 11, 2002 01:09:49 PM newI would suppose a parade of soldiers carrying assault rifles through the streets of Montgomery County, VA is pretty much out of the question right now also...
Your supposition would be incorrect. Montgomery County, Virginia is very much a pro-gun county in what is a very pro-gun state. Of course if you actually meant Montgomery County, MD (where some of the sniper shootings occurred), your supposition would still most likely be incorrect. Most people in danger of being killed by a sniper would feel a certain level of relief at seeing guns in the hands of the good guys for a change.
posted on November 11, 2002 01:15:53 PM new
In a perfect world there would be no need for guns. But we do not live in a perfect world. The anti-gun crowd's assumption that life would be safer if guns were forbidden is based on the false premise (I would say the liberal premise but that would be redundant) that criminals along with law abiding citizens would give up their guns. They would not of course. Criminals by definition don't obey laws. Taking the guns away from the law abiding public while the criminals retain theirs would make all of us less safe. Let's use a little common sense here folks.
