| Author |
Topic:
Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
6/27 12:06pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
- Date Edited:
6/27 12:07pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
KnightWriter
|
I admire you for what you bring to the table, KK. I honestly do. But, in the end, we just have a fundamental disagreement that's about as deep as can be. My reasons for not giving you what you seek are as much beyond my control as they are within it. I'm poor when it comes to expression and much better at internalizing what I read and understanding it. In short, I'm much better with stuff coming into my mind than going out. I also lack the health to be able to make the lengthy, well structured posts you've always made, and I also lack the patience (not to mention the intelligence). I'm just not into the mode of posting you are, Richard, and I wish to the ends of the earth that you would be okay with that. I make the best I have with what I've got.
With that, I depart, and wish everyone well  .
-----signature-----
"May you live all the days of your life"
"Discrimination doesn't violate anyone's rights, but prohibiting discrimination does."--KK
"Because John Bush..."--Tom Ridge
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
6/27 12:52pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
- Date Edited:
6/27 1:02pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Mr44
|
I need to ask though, how does a gun with a trigger lock prevent self-defense? Laws that may require a gun to be locked up are ok, but not a law requiring a gun to have a trigger lock? It seems like unlocking a cabinet to get a gun would make self-defense more complicated then disengaging a trigger lock? Am I missing something here?
Jabba's already touched on it, but the SC did touch on this during the arguments for both sides. I'm not looking at the exact transcript right now, but the justices did examine how long it took to remove a trigger lock, or reassemble a disassembled firearm.
You have to look at this question in relation to the 2 main points of the ruling:
1)It established that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals
2)DC's outright ban, independent of purpose, was too far reaching.
Neither of these points are outside of the norm when it comes to similar decisions made by the court.
Imagine if Washington DC wanted to regulate violent video games. Ok, instead of simply regulating the sale of such games as part of business regulation, (for example- no MA games sold to anyone under 17, etc...)what if the officials in DC passed a law that mandated that all violent video games have to be kept in a plain cardboard box and sealed with tape at all times. The law made no distinction for private residences, no distinction if there were any children in the household, and removed the choice from the game owner.
The result of that law would be that anyone found in violation of the restriction could be charged with a crime. A video game could be simply sitting on a coffee table in front of an XboX in someone's home, and if it wasn't encased in cardboard and sealed with tape, the owner could be arrested and charged with a crime.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_SweetPea
Registered:
Nov '02
|
Date Posted:
6/27 2:20pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
- Date Edited:
6/27 2:22pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Master_SweetPea
|
Fluke_Groundrunner posted:
I need to ask though, how does a gun with a trigger lock prevent self-defense? Laws that may require a gun to be locked up are ok, but not a law requiring a gun to have a trigger lock? It seems like unlocking a cabinet to get a gun would make self-defense more complicated then disengaging a trigger lock? Am I missing something here?
Trigger Locks are NOT designed to be put on loaded weapons. It says so on the package of any trigger lock you can buy.
putting a trigger lock on a loaded weapon is like putting THE CLUB on a car's steering wheel while driving down the freeway.
Jabbadabbado posted:
Scalia undertook a wholesale, radical redrafting of the second amendment.
The number of pages of contortion it took Scalia to erase the words "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" from the second amendment impressed me deeply with its almost cynical disregard for the intelligence of the reader.
If you want to read a solid example of a common sense, plain text argument with persuasive reference to history, common law and framer's intent, you don't have to look any farther than the Stevens dissent. I'm referring here only to the section interpreting the meaning and significance of the first clause of the second amendment. Other parts of the Stevens dissent struck me as unconvincing and an unnecessary stretch.
At the end of the day though, the Stevens dissent is only a dissent, and the Scalia opinion is constitutional law.
Parts of the Scalia opinion are better than others, and I think it will do the trick of clarifying second amendment law (even if I deeply disagree with it) after the dozens of unleashed challenges to gun restrictions pass through the legal system.
Notice that I am not whining about the court usurping its authority. Scalia took a pen and rewrote the Bill of Rights. But that's what precedent is for. Supreme Court majority opinions are the annotated constitution, where the annotation is more legally binding than the text itself.
The first half of the Second Amendment is not a clause by any means or definition.
It is a reason for what comes next.
A Physically fit Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and maintain bicycles shall not be infringed.
A Militia in good health , being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and store medical supplies shall not be infringed
A well rested Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and maintain bed linens shall not be infringed
these statement would not have allowed for BANNING bicycles, medical supplies, or bed lines would they?
Jabbadabbado posted:
The wide dissemination of hand guns in the U.S. is a public health and social dysfunction disaster.
VERB:
1. To scatter widely, as in sowing seed.
2. To spread abroad; promulgate: disseminate information.
What data are you refering too? Almost everything I've seen/read/watched on "Gun Violence" points to Illegally obtained weapons.
KnightWriter
You need to really sit down and think about the idea the KK is putting forth. Do you honestly believe that the members of the U.S. Military are mindless zombies and none of them would become deserters? Do you think that every Law Enforement officer in the country would back a totalitarian government?
Citizens can overthrow their government, it has happened.
I'm just wondering if you've ever studied how in Korea the United States completely underestimated how fast North Korea could rebuild, because they didn't have trucks. They used bicycles, to carry bricks, cement, etc. and rebuilt/recovered, when we thought they couldn't.
could citizens overthrow the U.S. Government using only hunting rifles, shotguns and pistols?
probably not, But just as the colonists raided british armories for supplies so would the renegades.
Mr44 posted:
....The result of that law would be that anyone found in violation of the restriction could be charged with a crime. A video game could be simply sitting on a coffee table in front of an XboX in someone's home, and if it wasn't encased in cardboard and sealed with tape, the owner could be arrested and charged with a crime.
Great example, possession is not malice
-----signature-----
I don't like the donkeys and I don't like the Elephants http://www.lp.org "Some people never have anything except ideas Go Do it! Lucky Numbers 3, 11, 21, 31, 41, 43"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
anidanami124
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
6/27 4:06pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
I'm not even reading your posts, and it's mostly just your time that you're wasting by writing stuff I'm not going to read, and probably only a few others will, if anyone.
So what your saying is you don't care what the facts are? That's really what you are saying here.
And the fact is now that we in the USA know that the government can't out right ban guns that's a great thing. The fact's are that in the US we have banned things before. The laws ended up hurting only those who were not breaking the law to being with.
I mean come on KW think about it for just a minute of your time Prohibition. That well went over so well in the US. Then let's look at the War on Drugs. Yet again we ban them saying the the bad guys won't be able to get them. I call BS to the War on Drugs and Prohibition they did nothing but hurt those that were not breaking the law.
What the Supreme Court did was the best thing they have ever done. The old arguments of "Now there will be more crime because there is more guns." Well that a lot of bull. Gun or no guns there will always be crime. Drugs or not drugs there will always be crime. Alcohol or no alcohol there will always be crime. What you have to ask yourself is how can we fix it?
-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
rogue_wookiee
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
6/27 4:26pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
Fluke_Groundrunner posted:
I need to ask though, how does a gun with a trigger lock prevent self-defense? Laws that may require a gun to be locked up are ok, but not a law requiring a gun to have a trigger lock? It seems like unlocking a cabinet to get a gun would make self-defense more complicated then disengaging a trigger lock? Am I missing something here?
All gun safety measures are counterproductive to self and home defense. If someone breaks into your home having to go to your gun safe, remove the trigger lock and go to you ammunition which cannot legally be kept with the weapon is extremely time consuming. I see the idea behind it, just as I see the idea behind seat belts. In both cases I think they are good things if the person chooses to do so, but not things that should be a forced safety measure because I know that there are instances where the statistically less safe option has saved lives.
Laws are not the answer to accidents. The answer is education. I don't know how statistics could be gained to back this up, so I will have to speak from personal experience. Several members of my extended family have a great number of guns and many family friends have guns. I can't recall anyone who actually followed Illinois laws regarding gun safety. Instead I, and every other child in these families, was taught progressively about gun safety. From never touch them on to being taught how to safely handle them. I was taught how to make sure the different models were unloaded, where safeties where located, how to hold them, etc. Never has there been an incident involving a gun going off and harming anything that was not intended. It's the same premise with fire safety. We don't force people to lock away matches do we? Even though young children can burn the house down with them we trust that they listen to lessons about fire safety. Why don't we do the same with guns? We have firemen come to schools and teach children how to be safe with fire. Why not have a representative from a gun club or a police department come and explain firearms safety?
-----signature-----
“You’re probably the biggest taxer in the country, even bigger than the Congress,” - Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve. Be aware of inflation and how it affects our daily life. http://mises.org/story/2914 -What You Should Know About Inflation
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
anidanami124
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
6/27 5:10pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
rogue_wookiee posted:
Fluke_Groundrunner posted:
I need to ask though, how does a gun with a trigger lock prevent self-defense? Laws that may require a gun to be locked up are ok, but not a law requiring a gun to have a trigger lock? It seems like unlocking a cabinet to get a gun would make self-defense more complicated then disengaging a trigger lock? Am I missing something here?
All gun safety measures are counterproductive to self and home defense. If someone breaks into your home having to go to your gun safe, remove the trigger lock and go to you ammunition which cannot legally be kept with the weapon is extremely time consuming. I see the idea behind it, just as I see the idea behind seat belts. In both cases I think they are good things if the person chooses to do so, but not things that should be a forced safety measure because I know that there are instances where the statistically less safe option has saved lives.
Laws are not the answer to accidents. The answer is education. I don't know how statistics could be gained to back this up, so I will have to speak from personal experience. Several members of my extended family have a great number of guns and many family friends have guns. I can't recall anyone who actually followed Illinois laws regarding gun safety. Instead I, and every other child in these families, was taught progressively about gun safety. From never touch them on to being taught how to safely handle them. I was taught how to make sure the different models were unloaded, where safeties where located, how to hold them, etc. Never has there been an incident involving a gun going off and harming anything that was not intended. It's the same premise with fire safety. We don't force people to lock away matches do we? Even though young children can burn the house down with them we trust that they listen to lessons about fire safety. Why don't we do the same with guns? We have firemen come to schools and teach children how to be safe with fire. Why not have a representative from a gun club or a police department come and explain firearms safety?
What rogue_wookiee said was right. It's about teaching gun safety. A lot of people just don't know how much goes into gun safety and the thing you have to learn. The one thing my brother-in-law drilled into me was this: "Always believe the gun is loaded even when it's not always point it at the ground and never at any one else." I take it to heart and do ever thing he says it's that important. And he has a lot of guns in his house.
-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LordNyax113
Registered:
Oct '07
|
Date Posted:
6/28 9:35am
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
anidanami124 posted:
rogue_wookiee posted:
Fluke_Groundrunner posted:
I need to ask though, how does a gun with a trigger lock prevent self-defense? Laws that may require a gun to be locked up are ok, but not a law requiring a gun to have a trigger lock? It seems like unlocking a cabinet to get a gun would make self-defense more complicated then disengaging a trigger lock? Am I missing something here?
All gun safety measures are counterproductive to self and home defense. If someone breaks into your home having to go to your gun safe, remove the trigger lock and go to you ammunition which cannot legally be kept with the weapon is extremely time consuming. I see the idea behind it, just as I see the idea behind seat belts. In both cases I think they are good things if the person chooses to do so, but not things that should be a forced safety measure because I know that there are instances where the statistically less safe option has saved lives.
Laws are not the answer to accidents. The answer is education. I don't know how statistics could be gained to back this up, so I will have to speak from personal experience. Several members of my extended family have a great number of guns and many family friends have guns. I can't recall anyone who actually followed Illinois laws regarding gun safety. Instead I, and every other child in these families, was taught progressively about gun safety. From never touch them on to being taught how to safely handle them. I was taught how to make sure the different models were unloaded, where safeties where located, how to hold them, etc. Never has there been an incident involving a gun going off and harming anything that was not intended. It's the same premise with fire safety. We don't force people to lock away matches do we? Even though young children can burn the house down with them we trust that they listen to lessons about fire safety. Why don't we do the same with guns? We have firemen come to schools and teach children how to be safe with fire. Why not have a representative from a gun club or a police department come and explain firearms safety?
What rogue_wookiee said was right. It's about teaching gun safety. A lot of people just don't know how much goes into gun safety and the thing you have to learn. The one thing my brother-in-law drilled into me was this: "Always believe the gun is loaded even when it's not always point it at the ground and never at any one else." I take it to heart and do ever thing he says it's that important. And he has a lot of guns in his house.
I agree education is the key, but safety measures should be taken IMHO. Everyone knows that some children sometimes just don't listen to parents, for various reasons.
-----signature-----
Padawan of Aiel
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
6/28 10:33am
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
|
Yesterday I had a great time shooting shotguns and cheap cans of soda.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Zahn Kenobi
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
6/28 11:05am
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
Espaldapalabras posted:
Yesterday I had a great time shooting shotguns and cheap cans of soda.
Dude, I hear that taking girls shooting is a great date. Seriously, you should try it.
-----signature-----
Alaska: Coldest State; Hottest Governor
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
6/28 11:33am
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
|
Depends on the girl.
-----signature-----
Neils Bohr:
prize-winning physicist,
Olympic medalist,
costumed superhero.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
anidanami124
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
6/28 1:02pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
LordNyax113 posted:
anidanami124 posted:
rogue_wookiee posted:
[quote=Fluke_Groundrunner ]I need to ask though, how does a gun with a trigger lock prevent self-defense? Laws that may require a gun to be locked up are ok, but not a law requiring a gun to have a trigger lock? It seems like unlocking a cabinet to get a gun would make self-defense more complicated then disengaging a trigger lock? Am I missing something here?
All gun safety measures are counterproductive to self and home defense. If someone breaks into your home having to go to your gun safe, remove the trigger lock and go to you ammunition which cannot legally be kept with the weapon is extremely time consuming. I see the idea behind it, just as I see the idea behind seat belts. In both cases I think they are good things if the person chooses to do so, but not things that should be a forced safety measure because I know that there are instances where the statistically less safe option has saved lives.
Laws are not the answer to accidents. The answer is education. I don't know how statistics could be gained to back this up, so I will have to speak from personal experience. Several members of my extended family have a great number of guns and many family friends have guns. I can't recall anyone who actually followed Illinois laws regarding gun safety. Instead I, and every other child in these families, was taught progressively about gun safety. From never touch them on to being taught how to safely handle them. I was taught how to make sure the different models were unloaded, where safeties where located, how to hold them, etc. Never has there been an incident involving a gun going off and harming anything that was not intended. It's the same premise with fire safety. We don't force people to lock away matches do we? Even though young children can burn the house down with them we trust that they listen to lessons about fire safety. Why don't we do the same with guns? We have firemen come to schools and teach children how to be safe with fire. Why not have a representative from a gun club or a police department come and explain firearms safety?
What rogue_wookiee said was right. It's about teaching gun safety. A lot of people just don't know how much goes into gun safety and the thing you have to learn. The one thing my brother-in-law drilled into me was this: "Always believe the gun is loaded even when it's not always point it at the ground and never at any one else." I take it to heart and do ever thing he says it's that important. And he has a lot of guns in his house.
I agree education is the key, but safety measures should be taken IMHO. Everyone knows that some children sometimes just don't listen to parents, for various reasons. [/quote]
You see I have a small problem there. Are kids and guns bad yes. But there are things around the house that can hurt kids far more then guns in fact I would be more worried about a kid getting his hands on the kitchen knife or a book of matches. Because not ever one has guns and those that have guns and have had the education already make sure there kids can't get there hands on the guns.
-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
rogue_wookiee
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
6/28 2:42pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
LordNyax113 posted:
I agree education is the key, but safety measures should be taken IMHO. Everyone knows that some children sometimes just don't listen to parents, for various reasons.
That is not the issue at hand. Certainly a good parent is going to place dangerous items where a child cannot get to them until they are old enough to be trusted with them. A bad parent may not. But something people don't stop to think about is that laws are the regulatory equivalent of bombs. They don't discriminate between people who don't need them and those that do. Many people do not have children in their homes or have taken different precautions which are quite sufficient. A law is overkill and it gets ignored by most everyone that every single time a law is past we all lose a little bit of our freedom to live as we choose.
-----signature-----
“You’re probably the biggest taxer in the country, even bigger than the Congress,” - Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve. Be aware of inflation and how it affects our daily life. http://mises.org/story/2914 -What You Should Know About Inflation
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LordNyax113
Registered:
Oct '07
|
Date Posted:
6/28 6:31pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
rogue_wookiee posted:
LordNyax113 posted:
I agree education is the key, but safety measures should be taken IMHO. Everyone knows that some children sometimes just don't listen to parents, for various reasons.
That is not the issue at hand. Certainly a good parent is going to place dangerous items where a child cannot get to them until they are old enough to be trusted with them. A bad parent may not. But something people don't stop to think about is that laws are the regulatory equivalent of bombs. They don't discriminate between people who don't need them and those that do. Many people do not have children in their homes or have taken different precautions which are quite sufficient. A law is overkill and it gets ignored by most everyone that every single time a law is past we all lose a little bit of our freedom to live as we choose.
I understand. I personally take alot of precautions in the home; heck, I even put knives and forks with sharp end pointing down in the dishwasher; but if there was law regulating such, I'd scratch my head.
-----signature-----
Padawan of Aiel
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_SweetPea
Registered:
Nov '02
|
Date Posted:
6/29 7:45am
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
rogue_wookiee posted:
A law is overkill and it gets ignored by most everyone that every single time a law is past we all lose a little bit of our freedom to live as we choose...
Well put! With increased laws, comes increased lawlessness
LordNyax113 posted:
I understand. I personally take alot of precautions in the home; heck, I even put knives and forks with sharp end pointing down in the dishwasher; but if there was law regulating such, I'd scratch my head.
Exactly! We have not yet had a Dishwasher Death epidemic, but imagine the argument that we might, and we need to ban dishwashers now before it's too late.
Overall i feel that the core problem is that as a nation we attack the symptom while the disease rages on.
If we "push the magic button" and all the guns disappear from the hands of American criminals, they will just start using knives like in the U.K., leading to a war against knives, like in the U.K.
OR
We could try to honestly prevent the crime to begin with.
Change the child labor laws and let these kids work over the summer.
Expand Summer School programs to help kids graduate High School Younger.
etc.
-----signature-----
I don't like the donkeys and I don't like the Elephants http://www.lp.org "Some people never have anything except ideas Go Do it! Lucky Numbers 3, 11, 21, 31, 41, 43"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
anidanami124
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
6/29 4:13pm
Subject:
RE: Oh second amendment strife, how I've missed you.
|
Master_SweetPea posted:
rogue_wookiee posted:
A law is overkill and it gets ignored by most everyone that every single time a law is past we all lose a little bit of our freedom to live as we choose...
Well put! With increased laws, comes increased lawlessness
LordNyax113 posted:
I understand. I personally take alot of precautions in the home; heck, I even put knives and forks with sharp end pointing down in the dishwasher; but if there was law regulating such, I'd scratch my head.
Exactly! We have not yet had a Dishwasher Death epidemic, but imagine the argument that we might, and we need to ban dishwashers now before it's too late.
Overall i feel that the core problem is that as a nation we attack the symptom while the disease rages on.
If we "push the magic button" and all the guns disappear from the hands of American criminals, they will just start using knives like in the U.K., leading to a war against knives, like in the U.K.
OR
We could try to honestly prevent the crime to begin with.
Change the child labor laws and let these kids work over the summer.
Expand Summer School programs to help kids graduate High School Younger.
etc.
Now that's using logic who told you that you could use logic?   But no really that's how I feel to is that we need to go after the criminals. Though I would say about the child labor law is there so as we don't have 8 year old kids work. Also I don't really want a 14 year old work in places they are not ready to be working in. But more school programs and really just any kind of programs that give them something to do are great ideas.
-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
