Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected Tomorrow

[Minister Masket]

I am sorry if I think that I should have a gun at my home and that I should know how to use one. I don't own my guns to go out and rob banks and kill people. I have my guns so that if someone thinks that they can break into my home while my husband is at work and rape me or beat me or hurt my children. I have my guns for my protection and for hunting (for the record we own one nine mil and a rifle and a .22) do I think that everyone should have one well no I think that you should have to pass back ground checks have permits and be of certain age

BUT I WILL BE DAMNED if someone is going to hurt me or my children in my home and I am proud to be a gun owner!!

That's all very well and good, but could you actually shoot him?

The phsycological impact here is huge. This is taking away someone's life, and for someone who isn't a solder, this thing would stay with you for the rest of your days.
I am assuming you would shoot to kill, as you come across as that kind of person (bat-shit crazy), whereas I would shoot their arm or leg.

[Juan_Bottom]

I am assuming you would shoot to kill, as you come across as that kind of person (bat-shit crazy), whereas I would shoot their arm or leg.

A sheriff told me that if you shoot someone, always shoot to kill.
Firstly, you prolly don't know what they're packin', and secondly, this way there is only one story.

Scary huh? It's scary when it's real.

I would go for the crotch though myself. Still a body shot, so it's easier to hit. But! nothing too vital to hit, so long as you shoot above the legs.

[Jenos Ridan]

Nappy if everyone having a gun=no crime

I don't think anyone on here believes that. I think his poster is just an example of what a government will do, if it isn't held accountable by it's people. Which is something several pepeple, including myself have mentioned. It's just a way that guns are a detterant. Not A preventative.
It's also a rebuttal to DM's comment that only a uncivilazied government allows it's people to own guns.

Juan gets it, why can't brainwashed sheeple like HC and Illiad get too?

I did not know Prancing Custard had tried to knock the Second Amendment. At least he is not as so stupid to knock the First.

The intent of the Founding Fathers was to have a militia; all able-bodied men ages 16 to 45, ready to bear arms for the nation or for the principles (in case of tyranny) it stands for. The Standing Army of the US was never a very large organization until WWI. Sure, there was the Spanish-American War, but that was mostly fought by basically the militia. The Civil War was largely the same way, with the regiments founded and organized by the state which raised the troops.

As such, the Second Amendment protects the right of the states to regulate it's militia, which includes gun owners. Therefore, it is none of the Federal Government's business outside of taxation of the businesses, the licencing of dealers and the regulation of interstate trafficing and importation of arms; the ATF can crackdown on smugglers and black-market activity, which is it's duty, but the limits on what kinds of guns are availible is a state matter.

[Neutrino]

Is it just me, or does anyone else consider it a little odd to base an entire country on rules set down by some men 2-300 years dead? Not only that, but then elevate these "founding fathers" to positions of near-divinity and constantly ask if any change to this almighty set of rules is what these long-dead overlords would have wanted.
Why should anyone care what the "founding fathers" wanted or intended above the wants and intentions of Bystander No. 5? They wern't divinely enspired, they wern't superintelligent. What makes their proclomations so special?
Can anyone explain to me why it is a much better idea to mindlessly obey a set of laws created by people who would be utterly baffled by the modern world, as opposed to, say, trying to create a better system irrespective of what this massively outdated text says?

Now, I'm not saying the US constitution is complete crap. On the contrary, I give 'em points for being the first (I think) to enforce personal liberties to such an extent. What I want to know is why it is so perfect that it forms part of the divine Triumvirate of the US: God, Flag and Constitution (as far as I'm concerned fanatical devotion to any of these is terminally insane).

[Jenos Ridan]

Neutrino, a question if you will:

How important is having knowledge? What is the value of the knowledge of the world your parents gave you?

To put that another way: How important is it to know where the government in question came from?

Answer me these things and we can proceed.

[Neutrino]

To the first two: very. Aside from the things that keep your meaty flesh alive, I would say it is the most important.

As for the last; not very. As long as said government is fair and just, I don't see why the origin of a government is spectactularly important (at least, when compared to things like keeping the government fair and just).

[heavycola]

Neutrino, a question if you will:

blah blah blah

Answer me these things and we can proceed.

is there any way you could put things less irritatingly, and with less misplaced smugness?

Because you obviously think you are setting up some devilish logic trap that will force everyone into agreeing with your brilliance, but i will put good money on that not being the case.

[tzor]

Is it just me, or does anyone else consider it a little odd to base an entire country on rules set down by some men 2-300 years dead? Not only that, but then elevate these "founding fathers" to positions of near-divinity and constantly ask if any change to this almighty set of rules is what these long-dead overlords would have wanted.

Yes I also consider it odd, in a Hary Sheldon sort of way, but the fact is that this is not the case. The writers of the Constitution placed within the Constitution the means to modify the document over time. This has been done time and time again. In some cases logical arguments were derived from the Constitution that weren't exactly spelled out in the Constitution. The notion that the supreme court, for example, can decalare a law "unconstitutional" isn't directly in the constitution but is derived from it. (Because the only way to modify the constitution is spelled out in it, all other procedures including ordinary law can't trump the constitution.)

The only reason we ask "what did the writers mean when they wrote what they wrote" (and this applies to the whole document including all the amendments, just like it applies to all pieces of legislation) is to determine what the laws were originally meant to do so they can be consistantly and uniformly followed. If people don't like the laws of their fathers they can change them. This applies to the Constitution as well. If you don't like the second amendment then change it.

Another point to consider is while technbology has changed in the past two hundred years the nature of man has not. The worries of our founding fathers are just as valid today as they were back then. They deserved to be considered, and given their due respect as the people of other times and places, along with the people who live today and now who have to come up with real decisions for their lives.

[Juan_Bottom]

The only reason we ask "what did the writers mean when they wrote what they wrote" (and this applies to the whole document including all the amendments, just like it applies to all pieces of legislation) is to determine what the laws were originally meant to do so they can be consistantly and uniformly followed. If people don't like the laws of their fathers they can change them. This applies to the Constitution as well. If you don't like the second amendment then change it.

Another point to consider is while technbology has changed in the past two hundred years the nature of man has not. The worries of our founding fathers are just as valid today as they were back then. They deserved to be considered, and given their due respect as the people of other times and places, along with the people who live today and now who have to come up with real decisions for their lives.

Ditto. DITTO.


NEUTRINO, I want to know where this idea of the Constitution being a wildley outdated text that is fanatically followed has come from. I'm not blindly following anything.

[Neoteny]

Another point to consider is while technbology has changed in the past two hundred years the nature of man has not. The worries of our founding fathers are just as valid today as they were back then. They deserved to be considered, and given their due respect as the people of other times and places, along with the people who live today and now who have to come up with real decisions for their lives.

I disagree wholeheartedly, but am too tired right now to explain why. I'll try later if nobody else beats me to it.

[Neutrino]

Yes I also consider it odd, in a Hary Sheldon sort of way, but the fact is that this is not the case. The writers of the Constitution placed within the Constitution the means to modify the document over time. This has been done time and time again. In some cases logical arguments were derived from the Constitution that weren't exactly spelled out in the Constitution. The notion that the supreme court, for example, can decalare a law "unconstitutional" isn't directly in the constitution but is derived from it. (Because the only way to modify the constitution is spelled out in it, all other procedures including ordinary law can't trump the constitution.)

The only reason we ask "what did the writers mean when they wrote what they wrote" (and this applies to the whole document including all the amendments, just like it applies to all pieces of legislation) is to determine what the laws were originally meant to do so they can be consistantly and uniformly followed. If people don't like the laws of their fathers they can change them. This applies to the Constitution as well. If you don't like the second amendment then change it.

You misinterpreted me slightly (probably my fault for writing in rant mode). My intention wasn't to directly attack the US constitution (though, in retrospect, I did spend a great deal of space doing just that...), but more to question the mentality of mindless obedience to it's ideal.

The problem with this (and, also, your second paragraph) is what is not asked, most notably "Is this a good law or not?". Instead of being judged on it's own merits (here I go again) the second ammendment is apparently judged to be good by definition, and therefore only (relatively) minor details like the intentions of it's creators remain to be argued over.
This is something I've seen exhibited here many times, so I finally dicided to start a good argument about it.

Another point to consider is while technbology has changed in the past two hundred years the nature of man has not. The worries of our founding fathers are just as valid today as they were back then. They deserved to be considered, and given their due respect as the people of other times and places, along with the people who live today and now who have to come up with real decisions for their lives.

I disagree similarly, but I'll leave this to you, Neoteny. I don't want to be rude and monopolise all this valuable potential arguing-time.
How does it feel to have your time farmed, split and bartered among your opposition, Tzor?

[InkL0sed]

While the worries of the founding fathers are indeed still valid, their solutions are not so, necessarily. The second amendment is a perfect example. Back then, armed citizenry may just have been able to resist a tyrannical government. Nowadays, they'd have no chance. The right to bear arms is no longer a check against government, and is thus no longer worth the reverence to which Neutrino refers.

[Juan_Bottom]

While the worries of the founding fathers are indeed still valid, their solutions are not so, necessarily. The second amendment is a perfect example. Back then, armed citizenry may just have been able to resist a tyrannical government. Nowadays, they'd have no chance. The right to bear arms is no longer a check against government, and is thus no longer worth the reverence to which Neutrino refers.

Seriously.....

Says who? Armed citizens have fought off oppression recently...

The right to bear arms is our only check. Our politicians obviously don't care about us.

[tzor]

The problem with this (and, also, your second paragraph) is what is not asked, most notably "Is this a good law or not?". Instead of being judged on it's own merits (here I go again) the second ammendment is apparently judged to be good by definition, and therefore only (relatively) minor details like the intentions of it's creators remain to be argued over.

I agree it's not asked and there are those who cling to the narrow interpertation of the second amendment in the same way a lot of pro-choice groups cling to the Roe v Wade decision. I think as in many cases the true answer lies in the middle ground, a recognition that both sides have valid points and that some of the arguments need to be solved by thinking outside of the box.

There is no way the notion that gun use was supported by the second amendment to allow citizens to revolt against their governments. After all, even the General himself had to put down a rebellion - the "whiskey rebellion."

Guns are currently used by law abiding citizens for three different reasons. The first two are similiar, hunting and sport. The third is for defense, typically home defense. Sadly this is needed because the ability to provide for the safety of the people is lacking somehow in government. If the government actually did its job then the people wouldn't need to have to defend their own homes.

I certanly am in favor of reasonable regulations. You have to understand that the reason why the court struck down the law was that they saw the law worded in such a way that the guns had to be in a unusable state at all times, so if they were in a useable state (assembled or with gun lock removed) in the moment of self defense according to the law the homeowner was in violation of the law. There really is a complex and difficult balance that needs to be reached in keeping a gun "safe" and in ensuring that a person can deploy it should his house be invaded.

[Neutrino]

Seriously.....

Says who? Armed citizens have fought off oppression recently...

The right to bear arms is our only check. Our politicians obviously don't care about us.

Citizens armed with weapons even the US gun laws have declared illegal. Stingers, IEDs, AKs; not the semiautomatic pistols or shotguns that the second ammendment does cover.
An army using purely legal (in the US) weaponry would be utterly trounced by any modern army.

[Juan_Bottom]

Seriously.....

Says who? Armed citizens have fought off oppression recently...

The right to bear arms is our only check. Our politicians obviously don't care about us.

Citizens armed with weapons even the US gun laws have declared illegal. Stingers, IEDs, AKs; not the semiautomatic pistols or shotguns that the second ammendment does cover.
An army using purely legal (in the US) weaponry would be utterly trounced by any modern army.

Firstly, prove it. Secondly, we've seen modern armys defeated by single action rifles. In fact, we won our right to bear arms fighting with inferior weapons.
I think your just thinking too broadly. Plus, if (fat chance) the U.S. government did declare war on its citizens, it wouldn't use all of the weapons it has afforded to itself. Because bombing cities doesn't leave the cities wealth intact.


But, the Supreme court and the NRA did already come to the agreement that the seond amendment does not cover military weapons. So you're right there. TZOR is too.

[Neutrino]

Firstly, prove it.

You want me to start a rebellion singlehandedly? That may prove a little difficult.

Secondly, we've seen modern armys defeated by single action rifles.

By "Modern" I meant "up to date". I would most definately like to see proof of a significant portion of one of the more militaristic western countries (the US, UK and similar) defeated solely by single shot rifles (IEDs and Stingers are doing most of the damage in Iraq, so that's clearly out)

In fact, we won our right to bear arms fighting with inferior weapons.

That was hundreds of years ago, this is now. Then, a slight technological disadvantage could be made up with enough numbers. Now, it'll get you slaughtered.

I think your just thinking too broadly. Plus, if (fat chance) the U.S. government did declare war on its citizens, it wouldn't use all of the weapons it has afforded to itself. Because bombing cities doesn't leave the cities wealth intact.

Of course. Tanks, however, can still be deployed without totalling towns by definition. If you stick purely to legal weapons, there's virtually nothing you can do against them.

Of course, there's nothing to stop you using high explosives to take out tanks. However, then it turns from "Our right to bear arms saved the US from lizardmen", to "The Anarchist's Cookbook and some plastic explosive I cooked up illegally saved the US from lizardmen".
In any real war against a massively technologically superior enemy, owning enough firearms to sink a small ship isn't going to help at all.

@Tzor: I'm sorry we had to agree. Things could have been so fun had we been able to find a point of disagreement, but I'm afraid we just worked it out far too easily.
Now to hope Jenos comes back...

[tzor]

Firstly, prove it. Secondly, we've seen modern armys defeated by single action rifles. In fact, we won our right to bear arms fighting with inferior weapons.

Sorry, but you are incorrect there. Our men weren't perhaps the best trained and they weren't a professional fighting force, but we had the most advanced technology at the time the long or "Kentucky" rifle.

The longrifle is said by modern experts to have a range of 80 to 100 yards. This figure is meant for the normal or novice user. A trained, experienced shooter who knows how to take variables into account such as (gunpowder) load, windage, drop, etc. can easily extend the medium range of the long rifle to 400-500 yards. In 1778 at the siege of Boonesborough, Kentucky, one of the officers of the combined British/Shawnee assault force was hiding behind a tree. He stuck his head out from behind the tree and was instantly killed by a ball to the forehead fired by none other than the legendary Daniel Boone, who was known for always firing the same fixed measure load of blackpowder in his rifle. This shot was later confirmed by witnesses on both sides and the distance measured at 250 yards. Hitting a target so precisely at that range would probably make the Kentucky Rifle comparable in total effective (long) range with the British Baker rifle at 700 to 800 yards.

The Baker rifle wasn't produced until 1800. The weapon used at the time by British forces was the Brown Bess.

Accuracy of the Brown Bess was, as with most other muskets, low, primarily due to the lack of sights and the use of undersized military ammunition meant for ease of loading. The effective range is often quoted as 100 yards (meters) but was often fired en masse at 50 m to inflict the greatest damage upon the enemy. The combination of large caliber of the projectile, the heavy weight of its lead construction contributed to its low effective range. Military tactics of the period stressed mass volleys and massed bayonet charges, instead of individual marksmanship. The large soft projectile could inflict a great deal of damage when accurate. The great length of the weapon allowed longer reach in bayonet engagements.

[Juan_Bottom]

Sorry, but you are incorrect there. Our men weren't perhaps the best trained and they weren't a professional fighting force, but we had the most advanced technology at the time the long or "Kentucky" rifle.

Hold on TZOR, you're getting ahead of me. I figured you would bring his up. I didn't say our whole army/militia had inferior weapons. But that indeed, gun for gun, the British had the best rifles. In fact, once the French sent us rifles, we didn't even have uniform caliber between regular army. We did fight the war with inferior rifles.

Though granted, the Kentucky rifle may have saved the nation. But I'll leave that to another thread.

You want me to start a rebellion singlehandedly? That may prove a little difficult.

No, what I ment was all a person needs to overcome is a reason. History has shown that the size of your force doesn't mean squat if the people won't stop. If they have reason to fight. Japan '45 is a good, extreme example.

Of course. Tanks, however, can still be deployed without totalling towns by definition. If you stick purely to legal weapons, there's virtually nothing you can do against them.

I disagree. Iraq is showing this. And lets not forget that all I need to get ahold of a stinger myself is a bolt cutter. U.S. armories are all ove the midwest.

Of course, there's nothing to stop you using high explosives to take out tanks. However, then it turns from "Our right to bear arms saved the US from lizardmen", to "The Anarchist's Cookbook and some plastic explosive I cooked up illegally saved the US from lizardmen".

What is all this lizardmen stuff? It's insulting.
I'm pretty sure you haven't been following what I've been saying from the start. I'm confused as to where your argument is going anyway.

defeated solely by single shot rifles

Good thing in the U.S. single shots are more collector pieces.

That was hundreds of years ago, this is now. Then, a slight technological disadvantage could be made up with enough numbers. Now, it'll get you slaughtered.

I think you've lost your point. We shouldn't have guns because we can't defend ourselves anyway? Slaves are made such ways.

In any real war against a massively technologically superior enemy, owning enough firearms to sink a small ship isn't going to help at all.

Neither are numbers. Neither is the size of the force. It's always about morale. If you don't have a reason to fight, you can't win. But again, your not arguing gun-control, you're arguing some form of pacifism.

Am I the only one who seriously understood the poster?

[Neutrino]

Juan, I was responding to this post, more specifically the bolded part. You contended that "The right to bear arms is our only check", I set about proving why that was not true.

Seriously.....

Says who? Armed citizens have fought off oppression recently...

The right to bear arms is our only check. Our politicians obviously don't care about us.

I disagree. Iraq is showing this. And lets not forget that all I need to get ahold of a stinger myself is a bolt cutter. U.S. armories are all ove the midwest.

But then it's not the weapons you owned specifically because of the second ammendment that will allow you to successfully resist your opressor (lizardman or otherwise), it's stolen military hardware. It wouldn't have mattered if all firearms were completely illegal in the US prior to your rebellion, you would have been just as capable of cutting wire.
In a war against a modern army, the second ammendment will mean very little. It's all the weapons that the second ammendment does not allow that will be crucial in winning the war.

What is all this lizardmen stuff? It's insulting.

Sorry, hangover from arguing against Jay.

[Juan_Bottom]

But then it's not the weapons you owned specifically because of the second ammendment that will allow you to successfully resist your opressor (lizardman or otherwise), it's stolen military hardware. It wouldn't have mattered if all firearms were completely illegal in the US prior to your rebellion, you would have been just as capable of cutting wire.
In a war against a modern army, the second ammendment will mean very little. It's all the weapons that the second ammendment does not allow that will be crucial in winning the war.

I still disagree. I was only pointing out that stinger missles/cannon, in the actual unlikely event of another civil war, would soon belong to the citizens of the state that they are in. But who knows what we are talking about. County vs county, state against state, individuals against anarchy, foriegn invasion, government oppression, Zombie attack, who really knows.

The guns that an individual owns, whatever they may be, are purposeful to protect that person's rights. Because you never know. I don't even know what we are debating now. But stand by what I said. The Right to Bear Arms is our only check.