1
   

SHUD BURGLARY VICTIMS BE HELPLESS ?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 03:26 pm
OSD wrote:
The 2nd Amendment is not age specific.
It simply deprives all governments of any authority
to interfere with the citizens' possession of guns.



This is a patently false statement, for the following reason:

"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."

One would then naturally ask what is the meaning of a well regulated militia. (Unless, of course, one is a gun nut who believes that one already knows all there is to know.) This is answered in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution, to wit:

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Therefore, the Constitution very clearly grants to the Congress the right to provide for the arming of the militia. If the Congress were to decide that machetes were to be the specified arm of the militia, no appeal to the second amendment would have any legal force--it says the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep any damn fire arm i please.

Of course, i'm not so foolish as to believe that any of this will have an effect on your opinion. I just like to stir the pot now and again . . .
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 03:28 pm
If you attend the NRA taught gun safety courses that are required to obtain CCA licenses in states that allow concealed carry, you'll get the following advice.

If someone breaks into your home, do not attempt to intercede them. Instead, remain where you are, announce to them that you are armed and will use deadly force if attacked, and instruct them to leave. If possible, phone 911 and wait for the cops to show up.

In most states you can't use force to protect your property, only a life. Florida is a big exception. If someone is stealing something from you, FL residents can shoot the perp. If they have an accomplice that survives, that person can be charged with the death of the other thief. No joke.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 03:30 pm
2700 hundred CCA licenses granted in Michigan in the last two years and no one has shot anyone innocent yet. Ya gotta worry more about the citi-folk who go hunting for the first time and shoot someones cow/llama/pet.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 03:41 pm
Boy aint' that the truth . . . in southern Illinois, which is mostly comprised of the Shawnee National Forest, the local farmers have to deal with hunters from Chicago and St. Louis. It is common for them to paint the word "cow" in large letters on the flanks of their livestock. Old joke in Little Egypt:

"Alright, alright lady, you can have yer deer, just let me get my saddle offen him."
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 03:45 pm
Sugar wrote:
<<Any 10 year old who is walking around the street
packing a gun is a problem. >>

=======

I did it for years: no problem.
My neighbors did it for years: no problem.
The answer is EDUCATION in gun safety.
U show prejudice against kids' minds.
Such prejudice can cost them their lives.

Think of Polly Klass: wud it have been
BETTER if she'd been armed n shot Richard Davis, with his knife ?
before he kidnapped, raped n murdered her ?

or shall we say:
"well, its sad that she suffered those abuses,
but at least she was UNARMED,
in full compliance with all gun control laws, and that's the IMPORTANT thing."

========

<<As far as a child having a gun to shoot an intruder - I also disagree.
Most children do not have the maturity not to react too quickly because they are scared.
If I walked into my son's room late at night,
I wouldn't be confident that he would have the wherewithall
not to react to quickly (just waking up startled) and not shoot me.>>


Have u considered KNOCKING on your kid's door,
and audibly calling out his NAME, instead of just breaking in on him ?????
A little courtesy can help a lot.

Again: EDUCATION and practice, like police or FBI.


========

<<In your story, it should have been the adult's responsibility,
not the child's. >>

The adult was a guest. The child was hosting him.
The guest was unarmed.

Children r not as stupid as u imply.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 04:50 pm
Setanta wrote:
OSD wrote:
The 2nd Amendment is not age specific.
It simply deprives all governments of any authority
to interfere with the citizens' possession of guns.



This is a patently false statement, for the following reason:

"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."

One would then naturally ask what is the meaning of a well regulated militia. [ ad hominem vilification deleted ]
This is answered in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution, to wit:

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Therefore, the Constitution very clearly grants to the Congress the right to provide for the arming of the militia. If the Congress were to decide that machetes were to be the specified arm of the militia, no appeal to the second amendment would have any legal force--it says the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep any damn fire arm i please.

Of course, i'm not so foolish as to believe that any of this will have an effect on your opinion. I just like to stir the pot now and again . . .



Stirring the pot is good and u have my thanx for joining,
n making an effort to reason,
however many flaws there are in your logic.

To begin with:
An amendment is a CHANGE; the purpose of a change is to make something DIFFERENT
than it was before the change.
Thus, anything that existed in the Constitution of 1787
that was inconsistent with the changes set forth in the Bill of Rights
was ALTERED to accomodate the changes.

We know from history that there was NEVER any dispute
demanding the repeal of Art. I §1O sub-§3,
against states keeping troops or ships of war.
Article I §8, was OBVIOUSLY concerned with GOVERNMENT militia,
called "selected" militia up to and including that time,
whereas "well regulated militia" referred to the guys in the neighborhood,
like the merchants who armed themselves in defense of their stores,
(free of any taint of government control)
when the LAPD, or in earlier years, the NYPD, fled the scene of riots.
like the Free French, doing what they dam pleased,
free of any government control. A "well regulated militia" was like
a volunteer fire dept., or a volunteer library.
Indeed, during the Civil War, southern neighborhood militia
were brought into military conflict with those of the Union.

Like the Fairfax Militia organized in 1774 by George Mason and George Washington.
They had no permission from the King of England to do it.
They joined by their own volition; (or SOME Colonists joined the Royal Militia,
not a well regulated militia).
They elected their own officers, n enacted their own regulations.


SETANTA, u will scrutinize Article I sec. 8 in vain,
looking for any reference to the "well regualted militia"
to which u referred hereinabove. U posted in error. (q.v.)
YOUR OWN QUOTE fails to mention "well regulated militia".
It does NOT concern private militia.
The New York Constitutional Ratification Convention REFUSED
to ratify, unless that was in there. Virginia n New York were the 2 leading states.
That fact is particularly significant in light of the fact that there
were NO POLICE in the USA, nor in England, in the 17OOs.
It was just u and your neighbors against the bad guys.


Try it THIS way,
(See next post to U
for ease of understanding)
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 04:58 pm
continued
SETANTA:

DISPASSIONATE ANALYSIS OF THE AMENDMENT'S
SYNTACTICAL ARCHITECTURE
MAY BE FACILITATED BY THE FOLLOWING ANALOGY:

"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" US Constitution, 2nd Amendment

ANALOGY: A well educated electorate being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE
to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

1. Does this say that ONLY voters have the right to read books?

2. Does this say "well educated" ONLY by STATE GOVERNMENT colleges?

3. Does this say that only voters who are professors of state run colleges
have the right to read books?

4. Does this say that if you miss an election, it's ok for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Books
to knock down your door and steal your books?

If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBEY "gun control" laws ?
0 Replies
 
SkisOnFire
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 05:18 pm
Words reflect the mind. Isn't it more efficient
to ignore someone who deliberately refuses to create a well-written idea?
Not as much fun though . . .

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Growing up in Arizona, from the age of 8,
I was possessed of guns that I bought and others that I MADE,
in common with other kids of the neighborhood,

Apparently, still possessed. Good luck exorcising your mind.

For the benefit of our gene pool, I hope your children sleep with loaded guns just as you wish.

Nature has a way of restoring balance.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 05:19 pm
Om claims to have Mensa connections. Not sure what he means, though. Your Darwinian thinking has merit, Skis...
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 05:35 pm
cjhsa wrote:
If you attend the NRA taught gun safety courses that are required to obtain CCA licenses in states that allow concealed carry, you'll get the following advice.

If someone breaks into your home, do not attempt to intercede them. Instead, remain where you are, announce to them that you are armed and will use deadly force if attacked, and instruct them to leave. If possible, phone 911 and wait for the cops to show up.

In most states you can't use force to protect your property, only a life. Florida is a big exception. If someone is stealing something from you, FL residents can shoot the perp. If they have an accomplice that survives, that person can be charged with the death of the other thief. No joke.


Very sound advice, except for letting them steal your property;
tho, as a practical matter, I don't imagine he'd be carrying away
my toaster while I'm pointing a silver colored .44 revolver at him.
U know, u can actually SEE the smiling faces of the hollowpointed bullets thru the cylinder !

I wud let him leave freely, as per the advice,
tho that is a little ruf on the neighbors upon whom he will
practice his future (bloody ??) depredations. If u don't do that,
there's too much potential for trouble with politically correct government
that forgets who PAYS it, forgets whose side its supposed to be on
and pulls a Frankenstein, turning against its creators n maintainers.

Its an unAmerican HORROR that our local politicians
have adopted this liberal, anti-good guy philosophy. SHAME ON THEM.


I remember in the 199Os, there was a gang in suburban NY that brutally broke down
people's front doors (was it sledgehammers ? or shotguns ?)
then attacked the folks inside the house, robbing and defiling such of them
as they pleased (probably hopped up on drugs), then moved down to the next house in the row n did it again.

I think eventually a homeowner shot them n
the police finally got them, but each time they left a house (except the last one)
it was bad luck for the nextdoor neighbor.
If I remember accurately, this went on for a few nites.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 05:44 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Om claims to have Mensa connections. Not sure what he means, though.
Your Darwinian thinking has merit, Skis...


As a practical matter, it means that I am the founder n leader
of my local Mensa fine dining group. Last nite, we went to the Russian Firebird.

Its owner is the grand daughter of the Mayor of St. Petersberg, Russia
until he was assassinated in 19O5.
0 Replies
 
SkisOnFire
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 06:17 pm
Maybe it's something in the food.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 06:42 pm
This guy just cracks me up . . . silly references to syntactical errors, ignoring the point completely about a well regulated militia, and a specious argument about the effect of amendments on previous passages of the constitution . . . all of which is delivered in his drunken keyboard text . . . ah, all praise to Allah for the comic relief provided herein . . . much praise to SkisOnFire for contributions to same . . .
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 11:28 pm
Setanta wrote:
This guy just cracks me up . . . silly references to syntactical errors, ignoring the point completely about a well regulated militia, and a specious argument about the effect of amendments on previous passages of the constitution . . . all of which is delivered in his drunken keyboard text . . . ah, all praise to Allah for the comic relief provided herein . . . much praise to SkisOnFire for contributions to same . . .




Ah, u deal UNFAIRLY.
U misrepresent my position. I believe that u did not take the time
to READ it; then u condemn me for NOT doing what I DID.

Instead of "ignoring the point completely about a well regulated militia",
I squarely ADDRESSED your references to "well regulated militia"
at considerable & semi-redundant length.
U'd have KNOWN that, if u had read my answer to u.

I SAID NOTHING OF ANY SYNTACTICAL ERRORS, as u falsely allege of me.
U distort my position then denounce me for the errors that u made.

U appear not to be a serious man; just lost to your EMOTIONs.
I guess u liberals are just pure, unreasoning emotion. hopeless,
EXCEPT if u have an emotional experience. THAT turns it around real FAST for u
(according to observation). a pity that u limit yourself to that


Maybe its my fault, for elevating the argument above an intellectual level
with which u are comfortable; but then again, u DID assert the constitutional challenge.

That constituted an INVITATION to counterargument,
based on the Constitution.


O, well The USSC is on the side of Freedom in this matter
(when it does speak on the matter;not ofen), as are professional English grammarians.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 11:32 pm
SkisOnFire wrote:
Maybe it's something in the food.



Such hostility !


Shame, shame.


sounds like great antagonism to personal Freedom

typical liberals, I guess
0 Replies
 
Sugar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 08:13 am
Oh, yes, we'll just educate them about gun safety and everything will be fabulous. What you're missing is that these kids don't even receive a proper grammar school education. Most of the children who have guns here come from families that could care less if they live or die in the first place. I'm sure their crack whore mother is going to send them to a gun safety class so he doesn't shot someone by accident. Please.

If I'm going into my 10 year olds room, I am not required to knock on his door. It's my house and I'll travel through it any damn way I please. Having to knock on the doors in my own home so that little Bobby doesn't shoot me is ridiculous.

I'm not sure where you live, but it sounds like some perfect little community where every child has a 2 parent home filled with responsible people. The 15 year olds in Boston who live in a heroin den with their mother and her 7 other kids do not have the luxury of an NRA safety course. They have plenty of access to firearms though.

I didn't say 'most kids die of gunshot wounds'. I said kids do not usually die of attacks from animals and are more likely to be shot than attacked by a pit bull or a bear.

It's a moot point - you believe everyone should have a gun and I believe that there are too many kids with guns as it is. If you have any children please don't bring them to Boston. They'll have ample opportunity to use their weapon for self-protection - if they shot first. Moving vehicles are a tough target. Just ask them to aim well - we've already had 9 people shot within the city limits just this past weekend.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 09:03 am
Sugar,

Do you think your argument might be inordinately based on the premise that it's not possible to remove firearms from criminal hands?

The "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" argument really sounds good to Americans. But I believe they are completely ignoring the premise of that argument and have not considered whether it is true.

OSD,

Please remember that I like guns if you plan to address me. ;-)
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 09:03 am
Sugar wrote:
I'm not sure where you live, but it sounds like some perfect little community...


Actually, where Om lives (at least in his head) sounds kind of dreadful. A place where all that's remembered are weird incidents in which guns saved the day. Where children carry guns to school--and it's a positive thing. Where a person is defenseless if he or she isn't always armed. A place where a kid reaches for a gun when someone moves in the house.

What kind of place is this?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 09:34 am
Here's an article from today's paper about a kid who brought a gun to school in Spokane, Wash.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001741719_webstandoff23.html
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 09:39 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
Sugar,

Do you think your argument might be inordinately based on the premise that it's not possible to remove firearms from criminal hands?

The "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" argument really sounds good to Americans. But I believe they are completely ignoring the premise of that argument and have not considered whether it is true.

OSD,

Please remember that I like guns if you plan to address me. ;-)



Me too, Craven

I'm not quite sure whether I correctly understand your position,
as set forth hereinabove. Do u allege that it is possible for government
to disarm criminals, long term ?
If so, I believe that history has disproven that notion.
Indeed, it is not uncommon for criminals to secretly make guns
EVEN IN PRISON. We know because every once in a while,
a loud noise is heard, and a lot of blood is found when they accidentally
shoot themselves. I am acquainted with some retired prison personnel
(guards, teachers, counselors). In one case, some criminals made
their own fully functional submachinegun in the prison workshop,
one-part-at-a-time, with the guards around; shot their way out.

With that as background,
WHAT IS THE LIMIT of what they can make with free
and unsupervised access to the hardware stores of America,
when they are not incarcerated ?????

As a young boy, altho I had a goodly number of commercially made
guns, I made some guns of my own, because it was FUN; quick n EZ,
as did the other kids in the neighborhood.
We also had fun making and detonating bombs in our backyards in Arizona.
They were faster to make than guns.

In America, prohibition has NEVER been successful;
not alcohol; not marijuana; nothing that I can think of.


Anyway, it was never the function of government
to protect anyone from his own poor judgment.


P.S.: I enjoy your site, Craven
Thanx for the use of it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 06:30:07