farmerman wrote:Its my thread maporsche. Please dont make irrelevant comparisons to cars and fatness. Explosives are in the exact same vein as are firearms. I would insist on your opinion re: explosives, not some silly comparison with an individuals behavior (unless youre saying that militantly obese are considered carrying a weapon)
OSD says that,
Gun criminals are not "criminals",
they are defenseless victims themselves
whove not been stopped by the unarmed.
BULLoney !!
I never said that.
That is a lie, against me.
If that were true,
then John Dillinger and Cho
wud not be criminals who used guns.
Quote:Now if you'd like to get back to the VA law. Let's talk about how this law in general will have little to no impact on gun related deaths.
You have that on what good authority??
As far as explosives, I brought that up to draw the nexus between two similar yet totally opposite weapon types according to the Constitution. (As far as I know, cars, Louisville sluggers, and fat people arent given any Constitutional status so their "control" is open for reasonable discussion. Not so with guns.
Im a gun owner and , like a large number of gun owners, I feel that we havent attained a level of reasonableness in their ownership and use.
If we dont effectively prosecute existing gun laws and the gun lobby wont allow ANY reasonable laws like the GunSHow loophole in VA, or the reporting of stolen Guns in PA (and other states) then we have a world slowly turning upside down. WE are no longer protecting ouselves from bands of Indians or Grizzly bears . We have a huge population , some of whom will seek to prey on the weker, and we should , first and foremost, care about those weaker folks rather than worry about your (and my ) sacred rights to unlimited gun ownership.
Both you and OSD exude an air of hoplessness, (unless your air of apparent hopelessness is merely a ploy to maintain the status quo)> I disagree strongly.
As technology presents us with more options of weapons with personal controls (such as RIFDs that only respond to contact by a specific host) we will be able to render guns useless unless they are used by their biological owner.
Im open for any decent control. and OSD's ridiculous proposal of banishment has been reviewed by my "Peer Review" process and they find it hilarious but unworkable. (Too many Constitutional "rights " against cruel and iunusual punishment and protections of civil rights).
OmSigDAVID wrote:There r many options.
The first step is to choose to rid ourselves of them.
America owns islands in the Aleutian chain
that r closer to Japan than to California.
We shud take their pictures, their fingerprints,
their retinal scans and their DNA for future id. in case
thay sneak back in.
Note that I do not necessarily suggest that thay be CONFINED
where we send them, as long as thay do not sneak back.
Hmmm. Japan would love that, I'm sure. So, they are not confined. They can roam about their island and....do what?
I presume they would need food supplied. That means somebody has to be in charge. They would need a daily program, probably work. That means big fences would have to go up and guards maintaining the order.
But that's ok, work liberates people. They can have a big ARBEIT MACH FREI on the gates to the island.
You know, I am very glad you are the only one thinking this is a good idea.
David earlier said that the insane are already not allowed to own guns, yet both he and maporsche wont let the "Gun SHow loophole" which doesnt require some background checks at Va Gunshows , be closed.
To me thats the subtle mantle of hypocrisy that you wear. You appeal to what the law "is supposed to be" yet you dont support the means to verify.
Reminds me of the dialogues with the Cheshire Cat. Except, in your case , your silly phrases are what ever you wish them to be
AN observation that Ive cobbled together from reading your posts leaves me a bit depressed.
Your mutual distrusts of the population at large has yielded in you (to my mind) a visible indifference to our collective welfare. You wish to rely on arming yourselves to keep the civil peace. Izzat a close summary of your position? Indifference? If thats the case then Davids RASK footer is a cynical and hypocritical assertion. You should have a sign that states that "unless youre invited, youll be shot"
farmerman wrote:David earlier said that the insane are already not allowed to own guns,
BULLoney !!!!!!!!!!!
That is NOT what I said.
That is the NRA's position.
That is
NOT my position.
What I have said, consistently and
REPEATEDLY
is that any motivated person can and will either MAKE
his own guns, or will buy them from an underground gunsmith/gunmerchant,
the same as thay get marijuana.
Quote:yet both he and maporsche wont let the "Gun SHow loophole"
which doesnt require some background checks at Va Gunshows , be closed.
That wud be
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Gun control violates the Bill of Rights.
Quote:
To me thats the subtle mantle of hypocrisy that you wear.
I DO NOT HOLD THE POSITION
THAT U ATTRIBUTE TO ME.
Quote:You appeal to what the law "is supposed to be" yet you dont support the means to verify.
What the law " is supposed to be " is
NOTHING
because there is
NO jurisdiction to support the legitimacy of any law.
Quote:Reminds me of the dialogues with the Cheshire Cat.
Except, in your case , your silly phrases are what ever you wish them to be
NONSENSE.
Quote:
AN observation that Ive cobbled together from reading your posts leaves me a bit depressed.
However sorry I may be about your emotions,
or about your ability to reason,
that has
NO EFFECT upon
the freedom
that is protected by the BILL OF RIGHTS.
Quote:
Your mutual distrusts of the population at large
has yielded in you (to my mind) a visible indifference to our collective welfare.
TRUE and
TRUE:
I distrust everyone.
Our welfare is better served
the way it was before gun control existed.
Every citizen who is physically able to lift a gun shud be armed
with one, in his personal defense.
Possibly, mandatory classes training in proficiency and safety may be required.
Quote:You wish to rely on arming yourselves to keep the civil peace.
Izzat a close summary of your position?
NOT JUST ARMING ME.
I AM ALREADY WELL ARMED.
I have been for years and decades.
I desire
EVERY CITIZEN to be
well armed,
and all violent recidivists to be
BANISHED or permanently incarcerated.
Quote: Indifference? If thats the case then Davids RASK footer is a cynical and hypocritical assertion.
U can do
BOTH
Thay need not be done simultaneously.
Thay need not be done necessarily to the same people.
Quote:You should have a sign that states
that "unless youre invited, youll be shot"
That 's good too.
Maybe I 'll have one of those printed up.
David
Quote:That wud be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Gun control violates the Bill of Rights.
so did NOT owning slaves , until the position was included as an amendment..
Your argument is loud and clear and cast in stone dave. Well, we will have to wait and work on this.
farmerman wrote:David earlier said that the insane are already not allowed to own guns, yet both he and maporsche wont let the "Gun SHow loophole" which doesnt require some background checks at Va Gunshows , be closed.
To me thats the subtle mantle of hypocrisy that you wear. You appeal to what the law "is supposed to be" yet you dont support the means to verify.
Reminds me of the dialogues with the Cheshire Cat. Except, in your case , your silly phrases are what ever you wish them to be
AN observation that Ive cobbled together from reading your posts leaves me a bit depressed.
Your mutual distrusts of the population at large has yielded in you (to my mind) a visible indifference to our collective welfare. You wish to rely on arming yourselves to keep the civil peace. Izzat a close summary of your position? Indifference? If thats the case then Davids RASK footer is a cynical and hypocritical assertion. You should have a sign that states that "unless youre invited, youll be shot"
That is NOT what I said; not even close.
read more carefully ma. I said that DAve said the above quoted . However both you and he(he directly and you inferentially) seem to not wish to have the verification included to insure against the mentally ill from getting guns. That defines (to me) hypocrisy.
"We cant stop the criminals and the mentally ill from owning guns so lets not even try" IS that a fair paraphrase?
Dont be so touchy dude. Im giving a fairly accurate account of what he said (whether he admits it or not).
You agreed that mentally ill should not own guns but you didnt want to be the one to determine their inclusion, I got that. (Dont understand your point and the conflict, but I get it)
farmerman wrote:read more carefully ma. I said that DAve said the above quoted . However both you and he(he directly and you inferentially) seem to not wish to have the verification included to insure against the mentally ill from getting guns. That defines (to me) hypocrisy.
"We cant stop the criminals and the mentally ill from owning guns so lets not even try" IS that a fair paraphrase?
Dont be so touchy dude. Im giving a fairly accurate account of what he said (whether he admits it or not).
You agreed that mentally ill should not own guns but you didnt want to be the one to determine their inclusion, I got that. (Dont understand your point and the conflict, but I get it)
First off, please don't lump me into the 'gun nut' category that David is in. I get that there are some people who shouldn't own guns. I am not defending David and I find at least 50% of what he says to be wrong.
2nd, that is NOT a fair paraphrase.
I never said that we shouldn't stop the mentally ill from owning guns. I explained that there were aspects of that law that I would have changed, and I think could have caused problems if that law became law and was challenged in the courts. I never said that we shouldn't enact that law.
I wouldn't even mind choosing out of the mentally ill who should and shouldn't own guns. My point of even bringing it up is that people who are on this list should be able to challenge their inclusion in some legal process. For example, I go to buy a gun and I get rejected. There needs to be a process where I can find out why I was rejected and challenge that rejection in a court of law. There I could present reasons/evidence why I should be able to own a gun and a judge/jury could decide if my name should be removed. If I was suicidal 20 years ago after my child died and was hospitalized for 3 weeks I do not think that should have an impact on my ability to buy a gun 20 years later (assuming I've lived my life without other incident).
Where I think you've lumped me on the other side of this argument is when I stated that while this law is a good idea, the impact that it will have on gun deaths is small. You asked me for proof of how I know this, which I don't have. But if good portion of the violence being committed with a gun were mental patients then we'd know about it. Cho's case is the only one I've heard. The rest seem to be otherwise law abiding individuals who snap, or career criminals that wouldn't have followed the law anyway.
In conclusion, in general I support:
Closing the gun show loophole by including background checks.
Making laws that require that the owner report lost/stolen guns.
Making laws to better report on mental patients so the current law will be more inclusive.
But the details of some these laws better have some safeguards in there to ensure that the rights of citizens are protected.
In addition, bio-identification, RFID's, etc -> I detest these ideas.
Quote:I wouldn't even mind choosing out of the mentally ill who should and shouldn't own guns. My point of even bringing it up is that people who are on this list should be able to challenge their inclusion in some legal process. For example, I go to buy a gun and I get rejected. There needs to be a process where I can find out why I was rejected and challenge that rejection in a court of law. There I could present reasons/evidence why I should be able to own a gun and a judge/jury could decide if my name should be removed. If I was suicidal 20 years ago after my child died and was hospitalized for 3 weeks I do not think that should have an impact on my ability to buy a gun 20 years later (assuming I've lived my life without other incident).
Where I think you've lumped me on the other side of this argument is when I stated that while this law is a good idea, the impact that it will have on gun deaths is small. You asked me for proof of how I know this, which I don't have. But if good portion of the violence being committed with a gun were mental patients then we'd know about it. Cho's case is the only one I've heard. The rest seem to be otherwise law abiding individuals who snap, or career criminals that wouldn't have followed the law anyway.
Ok, with this more expansive discussion youve made , I think we can pretty much agree on the goals and your idea of a built in appeal does make a lot of sense.
Quote:In addition, bio-identification, RFID's, etc -> I detest these ideas
Im not nuts about em either but Im at a loss how to render a gun useless out of its proper owners hands.
farmerman wrote:Quote:That wud be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Gun control violates the Bill of Rights.
so did NOT owning slaves ,
until the position was included as an amendment..
That is
ERROR.
A man who did
NOT own slaves
was
NEVER in violation of the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights NEVER required anyone to buy slaves.
Quote:Your argument is loud and clear and cast in stone dave.
I thought it was too,
but u occasionally
MISrepresent and distort my arguments,
and then u attribute your distortions to
ME.
Quote:
Well, we will have to wait and work on this.
Everything that we say is commentary.
The USSC will decide whether it will enforce the Bill of Rights.
It looks good to me.
David
farmerman wrote:read more carefully ma.
I said that DAve said the above quoted .
U distort my position.
Quote: However both you and he(he directly and you inferentially)
seem to not wish to have the verification included to insure
against the mentally ill from getting guns.
U
CANNOT insure that;
it is IMPOSSIBLE, in addition to being UNconstitutional.
U can no more stop any motivated person ( sane or not ) from getting guns
than u can turn water into gold.
I have repeatedly said that
any man who is not paralysed can either make his own guns
( including submachineguns ) or can buy them on the blackmarket.
IT IS EQUALLY AS IMPOSSIBLE
TO STOP criminals from getting guns,
as it is to stop them from getting marijuana.
Quote:That defines (to me) hypocrisy.
"We cant stop the criminals and the mentally ill from owning guns
so lets not even try" IS that a fair paraphrase?
YES.
Finally; it took a long time,
but eventually, u got it.
Quote:Dont be so touchy dude.
Im giving a fairly accurate account
of what he said (whether he admits it or not).
The HELL u did.
U try to stuff alien philosophy into my mouth
and pretend it is mine.
maporsche wrote:farmerman wrote:read more carefully ma. I said that DAve said the above quoted . However both you and he(he directly and you inferentially) seem to not wish to have the verification included to insure against the mentally ill from getting guns. That defines (to me) hypocrisy.
"We cant stop the criminals and the mentally ill from owning guns so lets not even try" IS that a fair paraphrase?
Dont be so touchy dude. Im giving a fairly accurate account of what he said (whether he admits it or not).
You agreed that mentally ill should not own guns but you didnt want to be the one to determine their inclusion, I got that. (Dont understand your point and the conflict, but I get it)
First off,
please don't lump me into the 'gun nut' category that David is in.
Please note
that
I merely wish to re-establish the status quo ante
thru out the 1700s, the 1800s, and the first quarter of the 1900s.
I just want to return to the freedom of defending our lives
that we all enjoyed before the perverse
and unconstitutional philosophy of
DISCRIMINATORY LICENSURE
of the right of self defense from violence,
was enacted into law.
David
Here are some exerpts of 2 brief articles
qua parsing the grammar of the 2nd Amendment,
by professionals of English usage.
They worked on a purely professional basis.
Tho the periodicals in which the articles
were published may well have been partial,
the experts showed their dispassionate work.
C what u think:
The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman
The following article appeared in the September, 1991 issue of California Libertarian News,
official newsletter of the California Libertarian Party.
English Usage Expert Interprets 2nd Amendment
I just had a conversation with Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator
for the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement English for several years at Van Nuys High School,
as well as having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin.
I was referred to Mr. Brocki by Sherryl Broyles of the Office of Instruction
of the LA Unified School District, who described Mr. Brocki as the foremost expert in grammar
in the Los Angeles Unified School District -
the person she and others go to when they need a definitive answer on English grammar.
...
"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."
I asked him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer.
"Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in two hundred years.
He said, "No."
I asked him whether this sentence could be interpreted
to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to "a well-regulated militia."
He said, "no."
According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence means that the people are the militia,
and that the people have the right which is mentioned.
I asked him again to make sure:
Schulman: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean
that the right can be restricted to "a well-regulated militia?"
Brocki: "No, I can't see that."
Schulman: "Could another professional in English grammar or linguistics
interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"
Brocki: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."
I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his professional reputation
on this opinion, and be quoted on this. He said, "Yes."
At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion on the
Second Amendment, gun control, or the right to keep and bear arms.- July 17, 1991
The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue of Gun Week,
and also appears under the title "The Text of The Second Amendment"
in The Journal on Firearms and Public Policy, Summer 1992, Volume 4, Number 1.
The Unabridged Second Amendment
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right?
And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would
be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if
you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of
the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles
Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -
who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage
in the Los Angeles school system.
Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud,
a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California
and the author of " American Usage and Style: The Consensus. "
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise. ...
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary,
and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert.
Copperud's fifth book on usage, " American Usage and Style: The Consensus, "
has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981,
and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself
but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the
following letter on July 26, 1991:
I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage,
to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,
and extract the intent from the text.
The text of the Second Amendment is,
"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."
[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter
of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause.
It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the
main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall").
The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep
and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms,
nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people;
it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words
of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right
of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?
[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed.
The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of
ensuring a militia.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether
or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State,
and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed" null and void?
[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied.
The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia.
No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms
and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite
to the security of a free state.
The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on
the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional
by the meaning of the entire sentence?
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated.
It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia. ...
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter:
"With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to
decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion." [ emphasis added by David]
David
What's yer poynt? I dont think anyone even started on what the 2nd Amendment says or means. My entire thread was to close a loophole that you admitted exists in the State of VA.
You walked into it without any comment re: what the laws say or who is not "supposed " to have a gun.
What have you got against the concept that Ive brought up and Maposrsche has modified .?
Sure better than wayteeng fer da krime anden shippen da perps too Kiska er somewhere else on da arkeepelago.
farmerman wrote:What's yer poynt? I dont think anyone even started on what the 2nd Amendment says or means.
My entire thread was to close a loophole that you admitted exists in the State of VA.
The loophole
that I admitted exists
is that
the Constitution prevents
any government from having
JURISDICTION
to control or to influence the possession of guns by anyone.
That loophole can only be closed by a
constitutional amendment
to the Bill of Rights.
Quote:You walked into it without any comment
re: what the laws say or who is not "supposed " to have a gun.
No citizen is in the category of not being supposed to have a gun.
Quote:
What have you got against the concept that Ive brought up and Maposrsche has modified .?
U r trying to overthrow the Constitution.
Quote:
Sure better than wayteeng fer da krime anden shippen da perps too Kiska er somewhere else on da arkeepelago.
NO.
Its sure better to go back to the way it was
before there was any discriminatory licensure
of the right to defend your life from violence.
David
The second amendment is silent on
1 what types of guns are allowable
2 How guns may of can be regulated
3ammo
4 weapons that didnt exist when the Constitution was penned.
5 what the several states can do about gun ownership and whether guns nedd to be registered.
Quite a few other points tht the 2nd A is silent on. Does that mean that the 2nd A assumes all situations by the level of detail presented in it?
I think that there will be many court decisions waiting in the wings.
