Guns and the Supreme Court

oralloy wrote:

McTag wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Thomas wrote:

McTag wrote:

The founding fathers didn't envisage space travel either.

They were, however, familiar with your argument that entrusting guns to common citizens would mean blood in the streets. John Adams mentions it as characteristic of continental European states, and devotes a few paragraphs to arguing against it in his Defence of the Constitutions of the United States. (Plural, because he's defending the state constitutions as well as the federal constitution.) I'm too lazy at the moment to look up these paragraphs in Adams's 300 page book. But if the point is very important to you, I'll give it a, well, shot.

I need to amend this in the interest of balance: Adams also believed in tight legal regulation of the militia, because there would be blood in the streets without them: "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws"

Well that's some sentence written by Mr Adams.

If I may simplify it, it is saying that he believes the militia (modern equivalent, the police or the National Guard) should be armed, and individuals should not be armed, (except when necessary for self-defence).

Well said, sir.

Not quite. Neither the police nor the National Guard is the modern equivalent of the militia. And listing self defense as a valid reason for people to be armed is not an argument that they shouldn't be armed.

I'm not disagreeing with that, although I've previously argued that the need for self-defence is being deliberately overplayed.

If things had developed as Mr Adams wanted, we would have no private armouries like at Waco, and no military-type weapons being freely bought and traded.

If I may simplify it, it is saying that he believes the militia (modern equivalent, the police or the National Guard) should be armed, and individuals should not be armed, (except when necessary for self-defence).

McTag wrote:

If I may simplify it, it is saying that he believes the militia (modern equivalent, the police or the National Guard) should be armed, and individuals should not be armed, (except when necessary for self-defence).

No, you're misinterpreting Adams to say what you want him to say. If you go back to his sentence, you will notice that he is saying nothing about whether individuals should be armed or not. He is saying that the manner in which armed individuals use their weapons should be regulated by law.

McTag wrote:

oralloy wrote:

McTag wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Thomas wrote:

McTag wrote:

The founding fathers didn't envisage space travel either.

They were, however, familiar with your argument that entrusting guns to common citizens would mean blood in the streets. John Adams mentions it as characteristic of continental European states, and devotes a few paragraphs to arguing against it in his Defence of the Constitutions of the United States. (Plural, because he's defending the state constitutions as well as the federal constitution.) I'm too lazy at the moment to look up these paragraphs in Adams's 300 page book. But if the point is very important to you, I'll give it a, well, shot.

I need to amend this in the interest of balance: Adams also believed in tight legal regulation of the militia, because there would be blood in the streets without them: "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws"

Well that's some sentence written by Mr Adams.

If I may simplify it, it is saying that he believes the militia (modern equivalent, the police or the National Guard) should be armed, and individuals should not be armed, (except when necessary for self-defence).

Well said, sir.

Not quite. Neither the police nor the National Guard is the modern equivalent of the militia. And listing self defense as a valid reason for people to be armed is not an argument that they shouldn't be armed.

I'm not disagreeing with that, although I've previously argued that the need for self-defence is being deliberately overplayed.

If things had developed as Mr Adams wanted, we would have no private armouries like at Waco, and no military-type weapons being freely bought and traded.

1 ) How can self defense be " overplayed " if it is a matter
of life and death ????????????

2 ) Adams did not suggest nor imply
that the citizens shud not be well and fully armed for self defense,
as u appear to attribute to him.




David

Anybody who posess a gun to protect his life is a criminal

It is precisely because of people like you and your ridiculous notions of what is necessary for your self-defence that deranged individuals can easily get hold of automatic weapons, and then turn them on their fellow citizens.

Ramafuchs wrote:

Anybody who posess a gun to protect his life is a criminal

So, basically, you don't believe in a right to self-defense?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Ramafuchs wrote:

Anybody who posess a gun to protect his life is a criminal

So, basically, you don't believe in a right to self-defense?

You do know, don't you Brandon, that the individual to whom you responded is a barely coherent, obsessional anti-American ranter?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Ramafuchs wrote:

Anybody who posess a gun to protect his life is a criminal

So, basically, you don't believe in a right to self-defense?

You do know, don't you Brandon, that the individual to whom you responded is a barely coherent, obsessional anti-American ranter?

McTag wrote:

It is precisely because of people like you and your ridiculous notions of what is necessary for your self-defence that deranged individuals can easily get hold of automatic weapons, and then turn them on their fellow citizens.

You meant to say semi-automatic weapons, of course.
There is nothing easy or cheap about becoming licensed to own automatic weapons.

McTag wrote:

...Yeah but if the other guy does not have a gun (because he couldn't get one because there were no guns in circulation) then you won't need one either.
It's a different mindset required.

I don't think this is true. If a group of men break into my house armed with clubs and knives, I do need a gun. Furthermore, should my government someday become a dictatorship which ought to be overthrown, it would only be possible to do so if numerous citizens had guns so as to form an underground guerilla movement, which is just what our Declaration of Independence instructs us to do in this case. From memory and hopefully close to the wording there:

"...whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new goverment..."

and later:

"...it is their right, it is their duty to throw of such goverment and to provide new guards for their future security...."

Your standard answer is to tell me that it modern times, it is impossible for the people to resist the might of a government, but, first of all, I'm not sure that is true if guerilla tactics are used, and secondly, it must be better for people to have guns and have some chance of overthrowing a tyranical government than to be rendered absolutely helpless and have no chance at all.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

McTag wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Thomas wrote:

McTag wrote:

The founding fathers didn't envisage space travel either.

They were, however, familiar with your argument that entrusting guns to common citizens would mean blood in the streets. John Adams mentions it as characteristic of continental European states, and devotes a few paragraphs to arguing against it in his Defence of the Constitutions of the United States. (Plural, because he's defending the state constitutions as well as the federal constitution.) I'm too lazy at the moment to look up these paragraphs in Adams's 300 page book. But if the point is very important to you, I'll give it a, well, shot.

I need to amend this in the interest of balance: Adams also believed in tight legal regulation of the militia, because there would be blood in the streets without them: "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws"

Well that's some sentence written by Mr Adams.

If I may simplify it, it is saying that he believes the militia
(modern equivalent, the police or the National Guard) should be armed,
and individuals should not be armed, (except when necessary for self-defence).

Well said, sir.

Well, that comment is worthy of several objections,
but let 's just focus on one, for now,
to wit:
the same as carrying health insurance is necessary ALL THE TIME,
because one never knows when he 'll get a heart attack,
or a stroke, or hit by a car,
so also one knows not when predators will fall upon him,
such that his life and other property depend upon
his being able to command and control such emergencies

( which is another way of saying: its better to HAVE a gun
and not NEED it, than to NEED a gun and not HAVE it )



David

Yeah but if the other guy does not have a gun
(because he couldn't get one because there were no guns in circulation)
then you won't need one either.
It's a different mindset required.

Of course a gun is a good tool, and even the threat of its use can be effective too.

The point (to me) is, whether all these hypothetical situations which will never exist except in a very very few cases (the Manson Family come in, say) and for which ludicrous reason you justify possessing the kind of weapons you favour (or indeed any firearms), JUSTIFY widespread gun ownership which is often misused/ subject to accident/reason for thefts/liable to distort the feeble mind.

Some people are frightened of their shadows. A story from the paper:

A British couple on holiday in Florida, lost their way while motoring and it was getting dark.
They went to the door of a nearby house and knocked, to ask where they were, and to get directions.
The owner of the house, being frightened, fired through the door without opening it and the holidaymaker was killed.

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

While you guys were going on and on about this subject yesterday
I went out a purchased myself a real nice pre-ban Type 56S AK47

Have a great week !!

H2O_MAN wrote:

While you guys were going on and on about this subject yesterday
I went out a purchased myself a real nice pre-ban Type 56S AK47

Have a great week !!

You have that in common with Osama bin Laden, then.

I doubt if Mr Kalashnikov had American hobbyists in mind
when he designed his assault rifle.

H2O_MAN wrote:

While you guys were going on and on about this subject yesterday
I went out a purchased myself a real nice pre-ban Type 56S AK47

Have a great week !!

You have that in common with Osama bin Laden, then.