Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok
In the US, however, the Founding Fathers also put in certain protections to minimize the possibility of the "tyranny of the majority". Certain rights are guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of whichever way the will of the majority may go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR


And Gary, there is no such thing as a "assault weapon" wish you would quit using the term. It is a semi auto military style rifle. Anything I pick up and hit you upside the head with is a assault weapon, it is the weapon I used to assault you with.

quote:

You state you own no guns, okay, good for you. I do own guns, I also own 2 of the military style rifles, and will be buying a 3rd one once I can find a new one AND they have not jacked the price thru the roof. Why, because I can under the law. I am even thinking about buying a 4th one but this one will be a 30 shot .22LR semi auto, because it is really cheap for .22LR ammo. I enjoy shooting, a single trip to the range can easily cost me 500+ bucks just for ammo. I have used my AR15 for coyote hunting, and pig hunting. I can use it for home defense but am un-likely to do so do due to me also owning several 12 gauge shotguns, which are much much better for home defense, or any number of the different pistols I own. I also own several thousand rounds of ammo, on the plus side of 4,000 rounds of all calibers but mostly .223/5.56mm. Why do I own such massive ammo? Because it is much cheaper to buy in bulk, I buy my 5.56mm in 1000 round lots. And I will soon be ordering another batch, why, because I rip thru 500-1000 rounds every dang trip to the range. I own 30+ 30 round mags, why? Because I got them for free from my National Guard unit several years ago when we got brand new ones.

My AR15 and M4 version are the weapons I am most familiar with due to my time in the US Army. I bought my 1st AR while still active duty, I bought my M4 after I got back from Iraq. If you check history, you will find that the most popular guns/rifles bought by US citizens are the exact same ones that the US military use. Always been that way.

They can pass all the so called "bans" they want, I will never comply with them. And until they legally amend the Constitution, I will never surrender my guns. They get too uppity and I will start excercising my right in Texas to carry a long weapon in public, ie, carry my M4 with me. As long as it is carried in a non threatening manner, hence slung barrel down over my shoulder. I can just hear the panic in the anti-gun crowd now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I love 2ndACR..not in that way..but he is a top man..

quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

So in the US government changes the constitution not the people, here in OZ the government proposes a change and the people get to vote on the change. A majority of the states must agree and I think, but I maybe wrong on this, I think 75% of voters must vote yes to the amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

quote:

. I don't pretend to think that banning assault rifles will cure all the ills of society but it might limit the amount of damage output by a few individuals, at least a little bit.

Gary, that, along with the quotes from VP Biden and Pres. Obama saying (more or less) 'We have to take action, even if it only saves one life' ; begs the question "what other things are there that we could do to save one (or more) life(lives)?

In 2010 in the US 35,332 people died in motor vehicle accident.
In 2010 in the US 25,682 people died due to alcohol-induced deaths.
In 2010 in the US 10,078 people died (homicide) by discharge of firearms.

Since more than twice as many people are killed by alcohol than guns, and more than three times as many people are killed by motor vehicles than by guns, should we consider banning alcohol and motor vehicles?

We can save many more lives by banning alcohol and motor vehicles than we can save by banning guns.
(And keep in mind that death caused by assault weapons is a small subset of the overall ' death by firearms' category).

I really can't see living without motor vehicles. Alcohol, how often does someone break into your house and force you to drink yourself to death so if people want to drink themselves to death that's maybe arguably their business. And DUI is probably well off being illegal. But assault guns? I can see society without assault guns and it doesn't look so bleak. Not sure what good assault guns are except for killing the most human beings in the shortest amount of time. They aren't really for hunting and they are a bit overkill for self defense. Pistols are probably more practical for that. Most people I have encountered who fight tooth and nail for assault guns usually seem to think the government is out to get them or think the world is about to end and they need to build a bunker in their basement...not the most mentally stable people out there. Take any murderer out there and ask him why he used a pistol or shotgun and he'd probably tell you because he couldn't conveniently get his hands on an AK-47 at the moment. Assault guns are for killing humans en masse. That's sort of why they were invented and that's what they are best for. If you aren't in the army then there really aren't many situations where a private citizen needs to kill large numbers of human beings. If a burglar breaks into your house a .357 magnum is probably as good a deterent as any.

quote:


January 10, 2013

15-Year-Old Defends Home Against Burglars, Shoots One Of Them With Father's AR-15

The teenage son of a Harris County Precinct 1 deputy shot a home intruder Tuesday afternoon in the 2600 block of Royal Place in northwest Harris County, deputies said.

The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window.

The teenager grabbed his father's assault rifle and knew what to do with it.

“We don't try to hide things from our children in law enforcement,” Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. “That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life.”

The home invaders fled, leaving a trail of blood.

quote:



HOUSTON – The teenage son of a Harris County Precinct 1 deputy shot a home intruder Tuesday afternoon in the 2600 block of Royal Place in northwest Harris County, deputies said.

The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window.

The teenager grabbed his father's assault rifle and knew what to do with it.

“We don't try to hide things from our children in law enforcement,” Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. “That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life.”

The home invaders fled, leaving a trail of blood.

Shortly afterwards, two suspects showed up at Tomball hospital. One was an adult and was hit at least three times. Lifeflight flew him to Memorial Hermann hospital in the Medical Center. The second suspect, a juvenile, was taken back to the crime scene, authorities said.

Neighbors said burglars had recently struck the two houses next door, including the deputy's home.

“They stole everything -- what they have inside. They already did it one time,” Rafael Cortez said.

Feel free to drop by and chat about whatever is on your mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok
In the US, however, the Founding Fathers also put in certain protections to minimize the possibility of the "tyranny of the majority". Certain rights are guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of whichever way the will of the majority may go.

Indeed, but they also provided a means to *amend* the Constitution ... 2/3rds majority vote in both Houses of Congress and then ratification by a 2/3rds (or 3/4th? sources I checked aren't clear) majority of the States, isn't it?

So, at least theoretically, you could amend the amendments, or even (effectively) repeal them *if* you could get Congress to pass the Amendments and then most of the States to agree.

Certainly, the Founding Fathers did *not* include the Bill of Rights ... that's why the Constitution was *amended* ... because they thought it was important and/or conditions had changed.

According to Wikipedia, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York *rejected* the Second Amendment!

(Yes, I know, that's *not* the Second Amendment we're talking about ;-), it actually became the 27th Amendment)

My point?

The Founding Fathers (like most nations Founding Fathers) knew that whatever they wrote in the Constitution only applied to the situation they faced at the time they wrote it ... and, even though they tried to foresee any reasonable developments, realised that the situation *would* change, so they provided a way to change the Constitution to allow it to deal with changes.

The 2nd Amendment was one thing they felt that needed spelling out *after* they wrote the original Constitution.

Now, just for the sake of argument, say that Congress passess an Amendment that says the 2nd Amendment is to be modified to exclude specific classes of weapons ... including Assault Weapons, say, and large capacity magazines ... and that 3/4 of the States ratify it.

That would make it *constitutional* to pry those Assault Weapons from people's cold dead hands, would it not?

Assuming that such an Amendment came to pass, and I would agree that it is unlikely in the US of 2013, then that would mean that anyone who disagreed with it would be in opposition to the Constitution ... and *might* feel that they had to secede ... just as the Southern States did in 1861.

With 3/4 of the US States against any secessionists, and probably close to 3/4 of the military, it would get real nasty, real quick.

And, like the 1st ACW, the side with the numbers would probably win ... and the side with the majority would almost certainly be the side the rest of the world would side with.

I make no value judgements as to which side might be more *morally* correct, but surely the Constitution is *always* subject to amendment? Including the Amendments?

Phil

Feel free to drop by and chat about whatever is on your mind.

quote:


What Is the Purpose of Gun Rights?

Viewed through this lens, gun rights in the United States are essentially a reiteration of our belief in self-government. They are not incidental, though they may be old-fashioned. They are instead an acknowledgement of where the authority for government begins: with the citizen, not with power granted from on high. As such, removing them fundamentally alters the nature of our American understanding of human beings' capacity for protecting themselves from harm. And beyond the effect of increasing crime, as a prosecutor from Washington D.C. details today, such steps may in short order transform the psychological makeup of a nation that has for so long invested much belief in law and policy in the power of individuals to live the life they make for themselves.

Feel free to drop by and chat about whatever is on your mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR


And Gary, there is no such thing as a "assault weapon" wish you would quit using the term. It is a semi auto military style rifle. Anything I pick up and hit you upside the head with is a assault weapon, it is the weapon I used to assault you with.

How about a more technical term like assault thingymajiggy then.

quote:

You state you own no guns, okay, good for you. I do own guns, I also own 2 of the military style rifles, and will be buying a 3rd one once I can find a new one AND they have not jacked the price thru the roof. Why, because I can under the law. I am even thinking about buying a 4th one but this one will be a 30 shot .22LR semi auto, because it is really cheap for .22LR ammo. I enjoy shooting, a single trip to the range can easily cost me 500+ bucks just for ammo. I have used my AR15 for coyote hunting, and pig hunting. I can use it for home defense but am un-likely to do so do due to me also owning several 12 gauge shotguns, which are much much better for home defense, or any number of the different pistols I own. I also own several thousand rounds of ammo, on the plus side of 4,000 rounds of all calibers but mostly .223/5.56mm. Why do I own such massive ammo? Because it is much cheaper to buy in bulk, I buy my 5.56mm in 1000 round lots. And I will soon be ordering another batch, why, because I rip thru 500-1000 rounds every dang trip to the range. I own 30+ 30 round mags, why? Because I got them for free from my National Guard unit several years ago when we got brand new ones.

My AR15 and M4 version are the weapons I am most familiar with due to my time in the US Army. I bought my 1st AR while still active duty, I bought my M4 after I got back from Iraq. If you check history, you will find that the most popular guns/rifles bought by US citizens are the exact same ones that the US military use. Always been that way.

They can pass all the so called "bans" they want, I will never comply with them. And until they legally amend the Constitution, I will never surrender my guns. They get too uppity and I will start excercising my right in Texas to carry a long weapon in public, ie, carry my M4 with me. As long as it is carried in a non threatening manner, hence slung barrel down over my shoulder. I can just hear the panic in the anti-gun crowd now.

I have no idea what would be the purpose of toting an M4 down mainstreet slung on your shoulder barrel down. Is this in case you run up against Doc Holiday? Or maybe you just enjoy freaking parents out? I mean is there a need for this that outweighs public nervousness?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Well, only 12 people were killed by explosives in 2011. Should we conclude that private ownership of explosives should be ok?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

It's all about control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok
In the US, however, the Founding Fathers also put in certain protections to minimize the possibility of the "tyranny of the majority". Certain rights are guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of whichever way the will of the majority may go.

Indeed, but they also provided a means to *amend* the Constitution ... 2/3rds majority vote in both Houses of Congress and then ratification by a 2/3rds (or 3/4th? sources I checked aren't clear) majority of the States, isn't it?

So, at least theoretically, you could amend the amendments, or even (effectively) repeal them *if* you could get Congress to pass the Amendments and then most of the States to agree.

Certainly, the Founding Fathers did *not* include the Bill of Rights ... that's why the Constitution was *amended* ... because they thought it was important and/or conditions had changed.

According to Wikipedia, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York *rejected* the Second Amendment!

(Yes, I know, that's *not* the Second Amendment we're talking about ;-), it actually became the 27th Amendment)

My point?

The Founding Fathers (like most nations Founding Fathers) knew that whatever they wrote in the Constitution only applied to the situation they faced at the time they wrote it ... and, even though they tried to foresee any reasonable developments, realised that the situation *would* change, so they provided a way to change the Constitution to allow it to deal with changes.

The 2nd Amendment was one thing they felt that needed spelling out *after* they wrote the original Constitution.

Now, just for the sake of argument, say that Congress passess an Amendment that says the 2nd Amendment is to be modified to exclude specific classes of weapons ... including Assault Weapons, say, and large capacity magazines ... and that 3/4 of the States ratify it.

That would make it *constitutional* to pry those Assault Weapons from people's cold dead hands, would it not?

Assuming that such an Amendment came to pass, and I would agree that it is unlikely in the US of 2013, then that would mean that anyone who disagreed with it would be in opposition to the Constitution ... and *might* feel that they had to secede ... just as the Southern States did in 1861.

With 3/4 of the US States against any secessionists, and probably close to 3/4 of the military, it would get real nasty, real quick.

And, like the 1st ACW, the side with the numbers would probably win ... and the side with the majority would almost certainly be the side the rest of the world would side with.

I make no value judgements as to which side might be more *morally* correct, but surely the Constitution is *always* subject to amendment? Including the Amendments?

Phil

Feel free to drop by and chat about whatever is on your mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

Why does one need a purpose?  I don't have to justify owning one to the government.  The government has no business dictating to me what I "need" or "don't need".

Why does one need an automobile capable of exceeding any speed limit in the country?

Having a rifle does not mean that one is some deranged lunatic, like you seem to be implying.

Ed-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

Why does one need a purpose?  I don't have to justify owning one to the government.  The government has no business dictating to me what I "need" or "don't need".

Why does one need an automobile capable of exceeding any speed limit in the country?

Having a rifle does not mean that one is some deranged lunatic, like you seem to be implying.

Ed-

I just think there are more important stands to take against government policies than to worry about the government denying you the right to maintain an arsenal in your house. Really, in some senses it's not that much different than complaining that you aren't allowed to own a rocket launcher or whatever. Who the hell needs one? I'm not against self defense. A pistol is fine but what does anyone need a "military style weapon" for? Are we really that insecure in our modern civilization that a person needs to bar the doors and windows and prepare every day for a shootout at the OK corral? I suppose in the end people will find a way to get what they want. It's a little scarry but I guess there's not much to be done about it.

Feel free to drop by and chat about whatever is on your mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

You're assuming I buy weapons for the purpose of defense, or starting some kind of revolt.  Perhaps, I simply enjoy shooting them and reloading ammunition for them.  It has nothing to do with feeling secure or setting up a personal bunker.

Your need do decide what I "need" is completly irrevelant.  I suppose that because you can't understand, nobody else is supposed to understand, either.

Ed-

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

Why does one need a purpose?  I don't have to justify owning one to the government.  The government has no business dictating to me what I "need" or "don't need".

Why does one need an automobile capable of exceeding any speed limit in the country?

Having a rifle does not mean that one is some deranged lunatic, like you seem to be implying.

Ed-

I just think there are more important stands to take against government policies than to worry about the government denying you the right to maintain an arsenal in your house. Really, in some senses it's not that much different than complaining that you aren't allowed to own a rocket launcher or whatever. Who the hell needs one? I'm not against self defense. A pistol is fine but what does anyone need a "military style weapon" for? Are we really that insecure in our modern civilization that a person needs to bar the doors and windows and prepare every day for a shootout at the OK corral? I suppose in the end people will find a way to get what they want. It's a little scarry but I guess there's not much to be done about it.

Gary,

How would you feel if a proposal was submitted to tweak the First Amendment.

It might say that freedom of speech should be restricted in circumstances where that speech was "hateful" or unpopular.

It might sound like a PC thing, I mean who is in favor of hateful speech?

But when you take a moment to look at that more closely, who is to be the arbiter of what hate speech is?
Would using the "n" word be considered hate speech? If you did that half of rap music would be deemed illegal.

Minimize one right of the people as stated in the Constitution and you open the door for it to happen to others as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

Gary,

How would you feel if a proposal was submitted to tweak the First Amendment.

It might say that freedom of speech should be restricted in circumstances where that speech was "hateful" or unpopular.

It might sound like a PC thing, I mean who is in favor of hateful speech?

But when you take a moment to look at that more closely, who is to be the arbiter of what hate speech is?
Would using the "n" word be considered hate speech? If you did that half of rap music would be deemed illegal.

Minimize one right of the people as stated in the Constitution and you open the door for it to happen to others as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt
The thread was officially over with the Hitler quote as far as I am concerned.

quote:


There is no real discussion here. It's basically the same few posting the same stuff ad nauseum till there is just one position represented, then a congratulatory pat on the back for having a great discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

Finally, I want a total ban(no exceptions) on MC Hammers.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

I am back to say I was wrong. Yep. After thinking things over we should just throw our hands up, surrender our rights and do what "feels good".

Headline from Texas:

Robber Beats Dallas Clerk With Several Hammers

There you go. Ban hammers. Right now. Ban hammers. Ban hammers. No one really needs one, do they?????

Hey, I'm just getting on the band wagon. I hope I get support from those who say we have no need of "assault" rifles.

BAN HAMMERS NOW. THE AVERAGE CITIZEN DOES NOT NEED ONE.

We can make some allowances by licensing 1 hammer(with rubber head) to home builders.

Finally, I want a total ban(no exceptions) on MC Hammers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

I am back to say I was wrong. Yep. After thinking things over we should just throw our hands up, surrender our rights and do what "feels good".

Headline from Texas:

Robber Beats Dallas Clerk With Several Hammers

There you go. Ban hammers. Right now. Ban hammers. Ban hammers. No one really needs one, do they?????

Hey, I'm just getting on the band wagon. I hope I get support from those who say we have no need of "assault" rifles.

BAN HAMMERS NOW. THE AVERAGE CITIZEN DOES NOT NEED ONE.

We can make some allowances by licensing 1 hammer(with rubber head) to home builders.

Finally, I want a total ban(no exceptions) on MC Hammers.

NEIN! I SUPPORT ZE HAMMERS! HEIL HAMMERS!

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805