Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by cj9788, Jan 26, 2011.
Can't say that I remember that incident. I noticed it took half the length of the video before the police were able to respond. That's a long time. Again, all the gun control laws on the books at the time that incident took place did absolutly nothing to prevent it from happening. And again, criminal control, not gun control. Build more prisons. That would be a good place to start with rebuilding our economy. Do away with parole. Make them serve every minute of their sentence. And don't be sheepish when it comes to the death penalty. Like I posted elsewhere if I had my way we would execute everyone on death row every Friday 13th! Do that and the other things I mentioned and I guarantee you we'll see a drop in violent crime!
I always hear the "why do you need to own a semi-automatic pistol" argument. Here's why: it's the most effective and convenient way of protecting yourself, particularly against multiple "targets". Double Action Revolvers are excellent (and are technically still semi-automatic handguns btw) especially for those that don't want to spend the time to stay familiar with a guns operation but if you panic and spend your six shots you may be in trouble. Add in the fact that most accessories such as flashlights and lasers (both of which have proven track records in hostile situations) are only really mountable on a modern semi-automatic pistol.
For those of us who don't live in a city we still have to protect ourselves and out pets or livestock against predators. A single shot or double-barrel shotgun fits the needs sometimes but not always. For example try hunting coyote (for protection of livestock if not sport or general species control) with anything other than a high-powered rifle.
Gun ownership and training, even just for casual shooting at the range is a skill, builds self-confidence and teaches responsibility and accountability to children that are properly introduced to it and supervised.
If they really wanted to cut down on gun crimes in this country every state or municipality would follow the "Project Exile" model - enforce the federal gun laws that carry a minimum sentence. It worked in Richmond Virginia and other places because it keeps armed criminals off the street.
First of all, I have a shotgun and a rifle though both are screwed to the wall for display purposes and have been there for nearly two decades, unmoved. Second, I was in law enforcement and was pretty good with handguns. But I never fired a weapon in the line of duty.
With that said, I always love Second Amendment arguments because of where logic takes you.
The second amendment says:
The language derives from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which includes the proviso that arms must be as "allowed by law." This was to assert the right of Parliament to make that determination as opposed the the King being the one able to prevent you from owning a weapon. From this, there are those that argue that the reason for the Second Amendment was to assert the rights of the states to make the determination as opposed to the federal government. That appears logical in the context of the militia clause. But that's not my point here.
"...shall not be infringed" means what? In the context, the word "infringe" means to violate a holder's rights under provision. There are no modifiers, no "except when."
The word "arms" meant and means "weapons." If you deal with the history of weapons, you know that around the late 14th century in Europe, smaller and portable hand-held cannons were developed, creating in effect the first smooth-bore personal firearm. In the late 15th century the Ottoman empire used firearms as part of its regular infantry. As the centuries progressed, these hand-held cannons evolved into the flintlock rifle, then the breech loader and so on.
But in 1689 when the English Bill of Rights provision was written, the average person had trouble getting any arms more significant than a sword and knife. On December 15, 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified, the average person had trouble getting any arms more significant than a muzzle loading rifle and pistol.
Today, of course, it is possible to create a "suitcase nuke." It too falls under the category of "arms" to be kept and borne. (We don't call it the "Strategic Arms Limitation Talks" for no reason and they weren't talks about a .38 Special.) Taken literally and separately, the second clause of the Second Amendment says your right to keep and bear a suitcase nuke shall not be infringed. I usually don't hear anyone, even the NRA, arguing that the feds have no right to stop me from owning a few suitcase nukes. So that brings up a difficult question.
At what level of arms does the Second Amendment "no-infringment" right kick in? Is it at "less than nukes?" Is it at "less than a shoulder-launched anti-tank or anti-aircraft missile?" Is it at "fully automatic firearms?" Is it at "semi-automatic firearms?" Or, because the amendment was written in the late 18th Century, is it at "muzzle-loading firearms?"
Does anyone really believe that the second clause of the Second Amendment really mean the government cannot limit in any way my right to keep and bear any weapon I wish? If you believe that, fine and it's all simple.
If you say, "well there are exceptions" then the "shall not be infringed" language of the Amendment fails, because that is an all or nothing statement. At the point of making exceptions, we move on to arguing over what weapons we as a society want to regulate and how we regulate them. That is simply another political argument having nothing to do with rights.
While "murder" is illegal, we still restrict who has access to nukes. And we still restrict who has access to shoulder-launched anti-tank or anti-aircraft missiles. There are good reasons to do so. I really see no reason to restrict who has access to muzzle loaders. But somewhere between restricting shoulder-launched anti-tank or anti-aircraft missiles and no rules on muzzle loaders, we need restrictive regulation.
And what about knives and swords?
I say the same thing all the time, no one who is willing to commit murder gives two craps about any other crime they may be committing at the same time.
Stricter enforcement of existing laws when they are broken is the best deterrent we have in my opinion.
The Federal Government addressed this in 1934 and 1968 when they required restrictive licensing of fully automatic weapons and explosives. Sawed-off shotguns and certain other types of weapons are banned as well. Firearms are definitely regulated (and taxed extensively including ammunition) despite what some of those on the gun-ban side would have you believe.
As to the nuclear bomb argument, I know you were just exaggerating to make a point but it's hard to envision any argument that such a weapon is for PERSONAL protection.
To me this is answered by drawing parallels to the 1st (and other) amendment.
It clearly states that no laws should abridge the freedom of speech but there are certainly hundreds (probably thousands) of laws that do indeed do just that. The most common case is "you're not permitted to yell "Fire!!!"" in a crowded room to incite panic. The founding fathers knew that the world would change and things they couldn't possibly foresee would take place but I still have to wonder what they would think if suddenly transported to 2011. :eek2:
You've just made my point Stuff happens and I know how I would react. I would decisively, with whatever means available, hopefully my semi-automatic, to defend myself without hesitation, as I have been trained.
Any weapon, whether a gun, knife, baseball bat or garrot, is "more dangerous", as you say, in the wrong hands. I hope you're not talking about weapons that are legal for American citizens to own and use. If ever I need to defend myself, my family and my home, frankly I don't care whether it is with a handgun, a rifle or a shotgun.
You speak with a passive voice from a fairly obvious position of a lack of mental toughness. Your manner of 'speaking' also tells me that you have already assumed that you will be a victim.
How can you be so quick to judge me by how I "speak" on a forum? And you question my mental toughness? It's not about mental toughness regarding this topic of protecting my family with a gun or weapon. It's physical ability to do so. Being disabled with extremely limited mobility severely limits my options. I barely move a computer mouse around, so firing a gun isn't happening.
Don't ever question my mental toughness when you've never met me, seen me, or know my past. I face tons of adversity each day and stay positive through it all.
Yes you do! And you stay very informed as well. I think we all enjoy "discussing" things with you and getting your take.
I'm sure Nick did not mean that in a personal way. Sometimes inflections and tones that are important in conveying a point, don't translate across the written word. I know I have been misinterpreted and have misunderstood others.
In Florida I can shoot someone for being in my house or trying to take my car if I fear that person will cause harm to me or my family Hell the way the law is written said person does not even have to be armed. They just have to pose a threat. I believe it is called stand your ground.
(1)A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b)The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2)The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a)The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b)The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c)The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d)The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3)A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
I finish with this memorable exchange:
Gloria Bunker-Stivic: Daddy, did you know that sixty percent of the people murdered in this country in the last ten years were killed by guns?
Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?
Looser regulations would not have saved them either.
I think Phrelin's post (#44) is one of the best posts in this thread.
When people argue against semi-automatic rifles for the people, some quote the "right to bear arms" saying we shouldn't restrict... but I don't hear anyone saying we should all have the right to carry around personal nuclear suitcases... so it isn't about the "right to bear arms" at all.
It's about what each of us thinks is reasonable... and that is probably never going to come to a consensus.
Heck, even those who think it fine to carry around a pistol in plain view would look twice at a guy carrying a crossbow in plain view and wonder why he had it... or a guy walking down the street with a big hunting knife in his hands or a machete!
So the "right to bear arms" clearly isn't one that everyone thinks means anything goes... and where you draw the line is purely a matter of opinion after that.
The only thing that would have save all 4 officers that got killed would have been foresight. I personally am waiting to see if the family in either case will be charged with any crime. If they knew the suspects were armed and withheld that information Then charges could be filed. It happened several years ago when 2 Tampa police detectives and one highway patrol trooper was killed. The girlfriend knew her boy friend had a handcuff key around his neck and withheld the info from law enforcement. The guy was able to use the key disarm and then kill the 2 detectives and then went on to kill a rookie trooper. Sad but true.
In May, a jury found Bowen guilty of being an accessory after the fact to first-degree murder in the deaths of Tampa police detectives Randy Bell and Childers and Florida Highway Patrol Trooper James Crooks. The jury also found her guilty of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter in the death of her son, Joey Bennett.
Off topic but in the vein as accessory, wasn't the sister (or cousin or other relative) of the man who murdered the little girl in Florida going to be charged as an accessory? She hid him out at her trailer before the police even found the body or something? My memory is really vague on this one now, but I thought there was a chance they would have found her alive if they got the guy right away when he was hiding out, but the sister lied.
Anyway, sorry for the OT.
Actually, there is PLENTY of documentation by the Founding Fathers of what their specific intentions were. Why some folks choose to assume otherwise, I'm not sure, but there are both public records (speeches and published editorials) as well as private letters available.
The Second Amendment wasn't about hunting, and it wasn't about target shooting. It was about acknowledging the RIGHT the *people*, the same "people" all of the other Bill Of Rights talk about, to keep (possess/own) and bear (carry/wield) the same kinds of weaponry commonly used by the military of the day.
These were men who had just finished going to *war* with their *legal government,* and had to fight against trained, modern, well-equipped government soldiers with a much smaller and poorly-equipped Army backed by a large number of "citizen soldiers" - the militia. These men were not at all shy about the importance of citizens being able to have modern weapons. These men had seen weapons evolve in their day and from the fairly recent past, from swords, to matchlocks, to the much faster-to-fire and reliable flintlock. No one could reasonably assert that these men couldn't imagine future evolution of weapons, either.
If there is a line to be drawn, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that the 2nd would protect the right of the people to own and use the same types of weapons a modern infantry squad might have. It clearly wouldn't cover "strategic" weapons like nukes, but it would definitely cover belt-fed machineguns, hand grenades, and even Javelin anti-tank missles.
Any discussion of "Who needs...?" is irrelevant, just as much to the 2nd as it would be to the 1st or 5th Amendments. The Bill of Rights is about limitations of the *government*, and protecting RIGHTS of the PEOPLE.
The recent violence is unfortunate and sad, but has virtually nothing to do with any of the above. In countries where access to guns is heavily restricted, criminals simply use other tools, such as bombs and chemical attacks, or use other tactics. Innocent people still get injured and killed. Those criminals still behave like criminals, and violence isn't far behind. Restricting one type of tool won't stop that, anymore than restricting the precursor chemicals for meth has stopped its production.
Of *course* owning and carrying a gun isn't some kind of personal forcefield that will protect everyone from harm. No one is suggesting that it is. But it is a means to protect yourself and your loved ones in the (thankfully) rare situation where it would make a difference. In that respect, it's like seatbelts and airbags in a car: you pay to have them, hoping you'll never have to use them, and knowing that they aren't 100% effective, but that they're a whole lot better than nothing at all.
best post ever, in the history of posts.
Indeed which goes back to my first post in this thread, You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws.
Foresight is the only possible thing that could have saved them.
One of the better posts I have ever read about the subject.
Sigma: In places where gun laws are lax, there are fewer gun crimes. Why? It's the same reason that crooks "go to the next car" when they come across one that is locked. Easier prey.
The most notorious murder here in New Hampshire in over a decade was done with a machete (the Mont Vernon murder where a mother was slaughtered and her daughter disfigured).
A few weeks ago, an intruder was shot and killed after brutalizing a 78-year-old Warner NH man in his home. The owner managed to finally get his hands on a gun and killed the intruder.
My wife is 5' 1" and views her gun as an equalizer.
In 1775, guns were all we had to defend ourselves from British Regulars ignoring the law and violating our rights (that we had as British subjects). 235 years later, the practical application is to defend ourselves from anyone who would do the same.
While I admire the job the police do, depending on cops to prevent crime is like depending on a tow-truck to prevent car accidents.