knightni Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Just some deep thoughts while I huddle, half-frozen in my deep woods cabin waiting for the wolves to get me. BACK WOLF, BACK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Actually now that I've voted I don't really understand the question and don't know what I've voted for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 05:39 PM) Actually now that I've voted I don't really understand the question and don't know what I've voted for. It depends a lot on your definition of the word "literally". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 07:42 PM) It depends a lot on your definition of the word "literally". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 08:39 PM) Actually now that I've voted I don't really understand the question and don't know what I've voted for. 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. Oh yes, and appendages of the ursine variety are one literal translation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 08:42 PM) It depends a lot on your definition of the word "literally". It does, and it sounds like a simple question, but it's not. I do agree with the recent SCOTUS ruling that said it was an individual right. Which I guess means "yes" which is what I voted? Or does it mean "no"? Am I retarded or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 Do you believe that there should be no infringement in the right to own a weapon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 NO infringement? No. That would be chaos. Certain people shouldn't have guns for obvious reasons, for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Gun totin' liberal here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Just like there are reasonable restrictions of speech, there should be for guns. 'reasonable' is the problem word, because to anti gunnies, every restriction is reasonable, and to some pro gunnies, nothing is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 They could fix it by requiring every gun owner to enlist in the Reserves or National Guard. Kind of like a draft card, but only for gun owners and it doesn't expire at age 25. They're in an organized militia then, they can own a weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 09:27 PM) Just like there are reasonable restrictions of speech, there should be for guns. 'reasonable' is the problem word, because to anti gunnies, every restriction is reasonable, and to some pro gunnies, nothing is. Good summary imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 06:02 PM) NO infringement? No. That would be chaos. Certain people shouldn't have guns for obvious reasons, for one. One interpretation of that amendment could still fit with that...since a well regulated militia is allowed...law enforcement and the military therefore have the right to possess firearms. (Not necessarily the interpretation I agree with). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 It is worded in the definite "shall not". However, people only read the latter part in their arguments. If you read the entire amendment, it was written because of an immediate need of a state militia for personal protection and as a protest against Britain's attempt to control Colonist individuality. This was prior to national concription, so it is outdated. The only parallel where you can make a valid comparison today, would be if gun ownership was predicated on mandatory militia representation, i.e. each state's National Guard or military reserve branch. Thus, gun owners should be prepared to be called upon for state military service as an agreement for owning weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I love guns. And you should too. Doesn't mean I want to go out and kill people with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 09:41 PM) It is worded in the definite "shall not". However, people only read the latter part in their arguments. If you read the entire amendment, it was written because of an immediate need of a state militia for personal protection and as a protest against Britain's attempt to control Colonist individuality. This was prior to national concription, so it is outdated. The only parallel where you can make a valid comparison today, would be if gun ownership was predicated on mandatory militia representation, i.e. each state's National Guard or military reserve branch. Thus, gun owners should be prepared to be called upon for state military service as an agreement for owning weapons. I think in the majority opinion ruling in favor of individual rights they said something along the lines of what their intent was back then and went with writings from the time and whatnot (I read parts of it this past summer but it's hazy). The dissenting opinion basically said they created law out of thin air. But eh, that's what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, when the Constitution isn't clear. Edited January 16, 2009 by lostfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 See, that nasty little comma in there kinda seperates that into two different statements. Back then, anyone who wanted a gun could have one, militia or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I believe the original intent was for private citizens to be armed and available to fight what ever needed fightin' I also weighed the pros and cons of having one available in my house for "protection" and decided the risks outweighed the benefit and never had one even remotely available when my kids were growing up. Basically, I decided for the gun to truly be protection, it would need to be easily accessible, loaded, and without a lock. I imagined I would have less than two minutes to react to save my family. That same situation was too risky for my kids, so I opted against it. Did I mention that was when my kids were growing up? Don't even think about it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 10:33 PM) I believe the original intent was for private citizens to be armed and available to fight what ever needed fightin' I also weighed the pros and cons of having one available in my house for "protection" and decided the risks outweighed the benefit and never had one even remotely available when my kids were growing up. Basically, I decided for the gun to truly be protection, it would need to be easily accessible, loaded, and without a lock. I imagined I would have less than two minutes to react to save my family. That same situation was too risky for my kids, so I opted against it. Did I mention that was when my kids were growing up? Don't even think about it now. I grew up in a house with guns. Dad had a gun rack in his bedroom with the shotguns and rifles on it. Of course, that was in the 70's, and in the 80's he graduated to a gun cabinet. But Juddling and I have been around guns forever. I have owned my shotgun since I was 12 and been hunting off and on since. We were taught to respect guns and never had any problems. When dad went out of town, the rifle was loaded and under the bed for mom. We knew enough not to touch it. Currently I have a safe under my bed that even when waking, I can open and load in less than a minute. If I need to get into the gun safe, that would take me an additional minute. I am teaching my boys gun safety, and if the slow-ass State police ever approve my sons FOID card, will be taking him to the range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 11:11 PM) I grew up in a house with guns. Dad had a gun rack in his bedroom with the shotguns and rifles on it. Of course, that was in the 70's, and in the 80's he graduated to a gun cabinet. But Juddling and I have been around guns forever. I have owned my shotgun since I was 12 and been hunting off and on since. We were taught to respect guns and never had any problems. When dad went out of town, the rifle was loaded and under the bed for mom. We knew enough not to touch it. Currently I have a safe under my bed that even when waking, I can open and load in less than a minute. If I need to get into the gun safe, that would take me an additional minute. I am teaching my boys gun safety, and if the slow-ass State police ever approve my sons FOID card, will be taking him to the range. Yep, I've heard plenty of stories like yours. I just factored the chances of someone breaking into my home versus the chances that one of my kids or a friend of theirs would be curious and the potential for an accident and made a different decision. And you are an amazing person if you can get a safe open, and gun loaded in less than a minute with an attacker in your home. Most people could not do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 11:20 PM) Yep, I've heard plenty of stories like yours. I just factored the chances of someone breaking into my home versus the chances that one of my kids or a friend of theirs would be curious and the potential for an accident and made a different decision. And you are an amazing person if you can get a safe open, and gun loaded in less than a minute with an attacker in your home. Most people could not do that. Thankfully I have never had to do it with an attacker in my home. I HAVE had to do it with gangbangers carrying what looked like automatic weapons outside my old house, while screaming on the phone to the police to get their asses back out here, again. Also thankfully, they left after they didn't see anyone outside, because I appeared to be woefully outgunned, only having a 12 gauge and a 1911. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 08:41 PM) It is worded in the definite "shall not". However, people only read the latter part in their arguments. If you read the entire amendment, it was written because of an immediate need of a state militia for personal protection and as a protest against Britain's attempt to control Colonist individuality. This was prior to national concription, so it is outdated. The only parallel where you can make a valid comparison today, would be if gun ownership was predicated on mandatory militia representation, i.e. each state's National Guard or military reserve branch. Thus, gun owners should be prepared to be called upon for state military service as an agreement for owning weapons. Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with that reading. I think it is abundantly clear from both the wording of the amendment and other writings that they intended the right to bare arms as an individual right, not a collective militia right. QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 11:20 PM) Yep, I've heard plenty of stories like yours. I just factored the chances of someone breaking into my home versus the chances that one of my kids or a friend of theirs would be curious and the potential for an accident and made a different decision. And you are an amazing person if you can get a safe open, and gun loaded in less than a minute with an attacker in your home. Most people could not do that. I don't own a gun, but what if you kept it loaded in a safe with a keypad instead of a turn dial? That should only take a few seconds to open, even if you are a bit panicked. Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 No question its an individual right. We had guns in the house growing up, and I was taught how to use them. I have owned guns, and carried them. I no longer own any - personal choice, living in a condo in Chicago with a little kid and no use for it, I elected to sell. Most of the key 2A arguments have been discussed here already, so I'll add something different to the discussion. Until this very recent SCOTUS case, they had avoided 2A like the plague. The only significant ruling they made on it before then was Miller, a highly flawed case. But one interesting thing to come out of it, in the opinions, was the discussion of a problem that 2A represents, due to the timeframe in which it was written. Specifically, it was stated that the amendment as written would actually protect the most dangerous and powerful of firearms. In the modern age, that would mean something like a SAW, or an M-60, or a projectile rocket of some kind (bazooka, RPG, etc.). Obviously, that is impractical, so even though 2A is strongly worded in its protection, you do have to be careful to put it in time context. That's why certain restrictions on the most powerful of firearms are reasonable. But, they need to be kept to a realistic minimum. Now, what I do NOT think is reasonable (and SCOTUS seems to agree) is municipalities or states restricting whole classes of weapons that are simply guns, and not fully automatics (i.e. handguns). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 What we need is more AK-47's in this country. Countries with AK-47's have no problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 08:34 AM) What we need is more AK-47's in this country. Countries with AK-47's have no problems. Empty argument. I did a few research articles on this in college. Looking at other first world countries like the US, there is a consistent theme where the removal of guns does not stop violence, and in fact often it increases. There are also plenty of single-country examples (i.e. Switzerland) where a well-armed public keeps crime rates lower. And in the US, communities that have high rates of gun ownership tend to have lower crime levels than those with lower rates of ownership. Its really very simple. When you restrict guns via laws in the US, you only end up taking guns out of the hands legal and law-abiding gun owners, who overwhelmingly are not the problem. The criminals, by nature, don't care about those laws and get the guns anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts