1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

In wake of recent shootings FL wants to loosen Gun Control! I love it!

Discussion in 'The OT' started by cj9788, Jan 26, 2011.

  1. djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    James,

    Just a few points..

    As far as the 2nd Ammendment goes, dissect it a little.

    1) "Well-regulated" meant what "well-trained" means today. It meant that you knew how to handle, clean and operate your firearm.

    2) "Militia" meant anyone who could be called up to defend the town REGARDLESS of what the threat was. In other words, it WAS the town populace and not the National Guard as has become it's colloquial meaning.

    3) Look at the latter part: "The right of the PEOPLE" (emphasis mine) "shall not be infringed". It does NOT say the right of the MILITIA shall not be infringed.

    That being said, I *could* be convinced that the "well-regulated" clause could be fairly interpreted to mean that you have to pass some sort of test - gun safety course, demonstrate some proficiency, etc. - in order to have your weapon. To me, that satisfies both sides. Someone who wants a firearm for protection should bloody well know how to use it. Those who are concerned about "any yahoo" having a gun would at least know the person knew how to use it and wasn't indiscriminately shooting blind.
     
  2. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,839
    186
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    As a sworn official and a representative of (a local) government, that Chief of Police was violating his own oath of office where he swore to "uphold and defend the Constitution".
     
  3. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The amendment had a purpose ... to defend the country. One could own and bear arms because of that purpose.

    It seems silly to scroll back to the 1700's for some definitions and scroll forward to the 2000's for others. The amendment wasn't written over hundreds of years. Mixing what it meant then with what it meant now just dilutes the meaning completely.

    The purpose was not self protection ... it was country protection. The purpose was not to allow for a Freudian barrel size contest. The purpose was not to blow stuff up. It was to defend the country. Gun ownership came with the responsibility to use it to defend your country as part of the militia. If one was unwilling to be called up when it was time to serve then one shouldn't have had a gun. If the same protection was put in place today there would be a lot of unhappy wannabe gun owners.
     
  4. cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    1,669
    2
    May 14, 2003
    That is your take on it others take it differently, and neither side will bend because it is a passionate issue. IMO you seem to be coming off that your interpretation is the only correct one. You even stated that the supreme court was wrong and you were right.. To me that is a tad arrogant.
     
  5. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Just pick the century you want to live in ... the Amendment is a simple line of text. Interpreting it some of it in 1700's language and the rest in 2000's language is manipulation. I prefer the 1700's text over the revisionist judges that chose to ignore a portion of the text.
     
  6. cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    1,669
    2
    May 14, 2003
    Like I said........


    I am using the original text. IMO they were talking about a well regulated militia and private citizens several people have pointed that out but you( and rightly so) you will not consider the possibility that some else is right. You call the court revisionists? Are they revisionists when they rule on something you agree on? Or are they following the Constitution as you see it.


    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

    You sure do read alot into those simple words. It does not say that both go hand in hand. Nor does it imply the opposite. I maybe wrong but i am of the opinion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed applies to each and every one of us.
     
  7. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    They are revisionists when they change the meaning of the constitution. They removed the militia from the text! That's 1/4 of the amendment!

    There is nothing wrong with laws that allow more freedom than is guaranteed by our constitution ... but to change the constitution when you're unhappy with the laws? That's revisionist.

    You seem to be missing punctuation. The original text?

    For the purpose of defending the country, I agree. For the purpose of defending oneself, hunting, Freudian contests ... there are laws that allow such ownership - and many are good laws - but the right to bear arms to impress your buddies is NOT in the constitution.



    Otherwise, I'm a little lost on the point of this thread ... a simple line "In wake of recent shootings FL wants to loosen Gun Control! I love it!" Apparently you are happy that people got shot in Florida because it may lead to looser gun laws? That's sick. Or are you just happy in any event where gun laws are weakened?
     
  8. cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    1,669
    2
    May 14, 2003
    Again you are wrong plain and simple nowhere does it state anything that you mentioned.

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    That is the original text as ratified by the states. You have your opinion and i have mine. I have already stated what I believe you have stated what you believe. we do not agree. but you like I said are arrogant if you firmly belove you are right and the supreme court is wrong.

    And how you could interpret that I am happy people got shot and killed form my choice of words for the thread title is ludicrous. I am happy that fl lawmakers are considering loosing gun control laws period. To imply anything else is absurd.
     
  9. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    "the security of a free State"

    It was meant as much of a protection right against our own or future governmet as it was from outside forces as you are claiming.

    Our founding fathers came from a land where a tyrannical King ruled, and they saw gun ownership as necessary for the populous to protect itself from our new or future government from turning against us.
     
  10. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    That would be "the security FROM a free State". The security OF a free state is defending our country, not opposing it.
    The security to be a free state is not permission to take up arms against the government.

    (Much along the lines of freedom OF religion vs freedom FROM religion ... which I can't get in to here.)
     
  11. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    Jim - It can be traced back to the late 1600's England when Parliament passed a law allowing both Catholics and Protestants the right to bear arms.

    The fear then was that the king would disarm the populous and become a ruthless dictator.

    Our founding fathers had the same fear for the future of our country. The right to bear arms here was to keep that from happening here. In other words, to make it difficult for our government to go rogue on us.

    When you study the history you will see the why of what they did. (Their number one consideration to quell an attack from another country was an organized militia or army.)

    Everyone else was given the right to protect their personal property from evil people and the possibility of a tyrannical central government.

    "One of the issues the Bill of Rights resolved was the authority of the King to disarm its subjects, after James II had attempted to disarm many Protestants, and had argued with parliament over his desire to maintain a standing (or permanent) army. The bill states that it is acting to restore "ancient rights" trampled upon by James II, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms which developed out of a duty to have arms."

    "In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms."
     
  12. bobukcat

    bobukcat Hall Of Fame

    1,965
    2
    Dec 20, 2005
    We're just arguing semantics now but why would you need to security from a "Free State"?? You also state that if you weren't willing / able to join in the defense of your country that you weren't allowed to have guns?? Back then that would have just about meant starving to death because they shot their food, they didn't buy it in a local Kroger store.

    The founding fathers were pretty open about the need for ordinary citizens to challenge their government and revolt when necessary to preserve their liberties. Jefferson in particular stated that he believed that revolution was absolutely necessary on a periodic basis. I'm not saying we start a revolution (although I think we need a LOT of change to what our government has become) but I do think the founding fathers believed that Joe Citizen should have the means to defend himself against oppressive government treatment, and I'm not talking about a lawsuit! Does it mean you had free reign to do so without consequences as others have suggested gun owners believe - definitely not.

    BTW - real nice generalizations of a group of people you obviously have a certain amount of disdain for. How about all the women who enjoy the shooting sports, are they compensating for something and bragging to their buddies too? :nono2:
     
  13. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    In a ruling by the Supreme Court (to further my argument):

    "United States v. Cruikshank"

    The Court stated that:

    "the Second Amendment...has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government...."
     
  14. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,839
    186
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    NOR is it prohibited.

    Tt sounds like you are hung up on the idea that some gun owners are compensating for their shortcomings and, therefor, do not have the right to own a gun. Nowhere does it say that a gun owner must have a socially-acceptable reason to own a gun. You may have confused "rights" with what is allowed. Just because a God-given, inalienable right is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the Amendments thereto, or the Bill of Rights, does not mean such un-enumerated rights are prohibited or otherwise do no exist.

    NOR is the legal possession of a large-caliber firearm solely to impress ones' buddies prohibited.
     
  15. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    If it were prohibited there would not be so many gun laws.

    That's the problem here ... we're in the gray area between what the Constitution protects and what is permitted by law. Some are arguing that ANY restriction on arms is unconstitutional. That is incorrect.

    It is good that the law allows, with restrictions, most of the gun ownership that is permitted. It is good that we can have laws to manage the ownership of arms. Said laws ARE within our constitution.

    Separating the 2nd amendment into two parts ... one that says it is good to have an organized militia - full stop - and the other that says that arms ownership is unrestricted is wrong.
     
  16. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,325
    461
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    +1......What amazed me about that case was that the Chief of Police was allowed to return to duty and was never given instructions or a court order not to do that again!
     
  17. Feb 1, 2011 #217 of 256
    cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    1,669
    2
    May 14, 2003
    This is what Florida lawmakers are proposing:

    Senate Criminal Justice Chairman Greg Evers, R-Baker, authored two of the controversial pieces of legislation, which seek to allow those with concealed weapons permits to wear their firearms openly, even on college campuses and private schools, while also denying physicians the ability to inquire about the presence of firearms in their patients’ homes. A third bill would forbid local governments from passing their own gun control laws
     
  18. Feb 1, 2011 #218 of 256
    Drucifer

    Drucifer Well-Known Member

    9,397
    244
    Feb 12, 2009
    NY Hudson...
    I sometimes wish more people had guns at these shootings. Naturally not knowing who the good guy is with a gun and who's the bad guy, that they all end up shooting each other. And as they say, Let the Lord sort 'em out! :rolleyes:
     
  19. Feb 1, 2011 #219 of 256
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Hint: The bad guy was up all night and had film developed of him wearing a G string and posing with his gun. The good guy decided that shooting into the crowd was not a good idea and left his gun holstered, choosing to tackle the bad guy. At least that's how it played out in Tuscon.

    In Florida the bad guy hid in the attic and ambushed the officers and later took his own life.
     
  20. Feb 1, 2011 #220 of 256
    MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,325
    461
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    Your "yahoo" attitude leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I'm pro gun! "Kill them all and let God sort them out" was a phrase coined during my combat tours in Nam and applied to a entirely different situation. The use of firearms in any situation is very serious business and should never be taken lightly. The "kill" range of a 22 short is one mile! Miss your target the round doesn't stop there. It continues for a great distance! As I stated before, gun control is being able to hit your target. There are three golden rules for firearms. Rule number one: Never handle a gun before checking to see it is on safe and unloaded. Rule number two: Never aim a gun at anything you do not intend to shoot. Rule number three: Be absolutely sure of your target before pulling the trigger. You and the "want to be" Rambos need to learn them!
     

Share This Page