33
   

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

 
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2013 03:47 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Give it up, Frank. You're just taking the bait and egging her on.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2013 03:53 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
How's cowardly ole Andrei doing today?
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2013 04:29 pm
If people are legally buying guns, then giving them away (gifts, bequests) or selling them legally to someone else - what's the point of banning guns?

Whenever there's a prohibition against something, there develops a black market. Drugs, booze, sex, you name it. This isn't the answer. If someone wants an assault rifle, he can get one, legally or not. Criminals care nothing for the law, obviously, and it's them and the mentally unstable you really have to be worried about, not Joe Blow down the block.

If you want to stop this senseless mass killing, you have to address the root of the problem. It seems to be escalating all over the world (and has been for a while) - the USA is not the only country where senseless mass killings are taking place. Norway, Canada, Iceland, Russia, China, Japan... to name but a few.

Think. Twenty years ago, how many people recycled? Today it's commonplace, at least among the 'developed countries' (it's non-existent in Cuba, Mexico, Belize, etc from what I personally saw). Twenty years ago, nobody worried about how fat they were, or how much they exercised. Today one's health is the talk of the town.

In addition, the mentally ill are not where they should be. They shouldn't be free to roam the streets. They should be institutionalized until they can function (if ever) in a healthy manner among others.

This whole idea the US has about 'inalienable rights' is antiquated. Nothing is the same as it was 200+ years ago, and nothing is not immutable; however the gun-loving folks keep obsessing on this ancient and out of date 'right'.

And could you not update your Constitution? What exactly would that take?




JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2013 04:46 pm
@Mame,
Quote:
And could you not update your Constitution? What exactly would that take?


Common sense.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2013 05:05 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Any private citizen can sell their used guns without any background checks.


Who is responsible for disciplining the well-regulated militia requited in the 2nd amendment and Heller?


Heller does not deal with the militia. It deals exclusively with non-militia rights.

The rights of militiamen to buy military weapons would be covered by the Miller Ruling of 1939.

Also, we don't actually have a proper militia at the moment, so there is nothing to train or keep in order.

But the government would be the one responsible for keeping them trained and in good fighting order, if they existed.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2013 05:06 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
oralloy wrote:
People could order a background check on anyone just by pretending there was a private gun sale happening.


I guess that people who want to sell guns will have to figure out a way to prove there are gun sales taking place.

That's their responsibility - certainly the NRA has enough money to help develop a plan for this.

You want to sell guns - find a way to prove you're doing so.


No. There is no requirement for anyone to prove that they are conducting a sale.

Currently, if someone wants to conduct a sale, they are simply allowed to do it without any background checks.

If the law is changed to require background checks on private sales, the NRA will ensure that it is done in a way that does not impose any undue burden on gun buyers (or sellers).
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2013 05:07 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I think that a multigenerational trend will begin in which aspects of the 2nd AMendment will have to change because its clauses are all outdated.


That will never happen. In the last second of America's existence, however far into the future that is, the Second Amendment will still be in force, completely unchanged from the first day it was ratified.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2013 05:10 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
the 94 assault weapons ban lasted 10 years until the GOP, congress subsidized by the NRA, since 1977, an armm of the gun industry, allowed it to "Sunset"


The NRA is not an arm of the gun industry. And they do not subsidize Congress.

The NRA represents their rank and file members. And the NRA's power over Congress comes from their members' willingness to vote.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2013 05:10 pm
@oralloy,
Your opinions are duly noted, Oralloy, but, please, let's understand that they are just that -- one person's opinions. Which is fair enough: that's all I asked for in the OP.
thack45
 
  3  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2013 05:13 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Standing around claiming that Congress doesnt have the cojones DOES NOT remove the responsibility from you the voter. If they piss you off, fuckin get out the vote.

I don't recall seeing "the guy I agree with, the one who's got the balls" on any ballots. http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb190/tint45/dunno.gif
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2013 05:27 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
Your opinions are duly noted, Oralloy, but, please, let's understand that they are just that -- one person's opinions. Which is fair enough: that's all I asked for in the OP.


You are mistaken. Much of what I just stated are facts.

Note:

Quote:
FACT: Heller does not deal with the militia. It deals exclusively with non-militia rights.

FACT: The rights of militiamen to buy military weapons would be covered by the Miller Ruling of 1939.

FACT: we don't actually have a proper militia at the moment, so there is nothing to train or keep in order.

FACT: the government would be the one responsible for keeping them trained and in good fighting order, if they existed.

FACT: There is no requirement for anyone to prove that they are conducting a sale.

FACT: Currently, if someone wants to conduct a sale, they are simply allowed to do it without any background checks.

OPINION: If the law is changed to require background checks on private sales, the NRA will ensure that it is done in a way that does not impose any undue burden on gun buyers (or sellers).

OPINION: In the last second of America's existence, however far into the future that is, the Second Amendment will still be in force, completely unchanged from the first day it was ratified.

FACT: The NRA is not an arm of the gun industry. And they do not subsidize Congress.

FACT: The NRA represents their rank and file members. And the NRA's power over Congress comes from their members' willingness to vote.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2013 05:36 pm
@Mame,
Mame wrote:
This whole idea the US has about 'inalienable rights' is antiquated. Nothing is the same as it was 200+ years ago, and nothing is not immutable; however the gun-loving folks keep obsessing on this ancient and out of date 'right'.


America does not regard freedom as a fleeting concept that our ancestors got to enjoy, but now we in the present must give up.

America chooses to remain a free country until the end of time (or at least for as long as we continue to exist as a nation).



Mame wrote:
And could you not update your Constitution?


Could, yes.

But we choose not to repeal our rights. We choose freedom.



Mame wrote:
What exactly would that take?


I didn't look it up, so might have a detail wrong, but: passage by 2/3 of both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by 3/4 of all states.

This day and age there will likely be a clause requiring that the ratification be completed within 7 years.

It doesn't matter though. We choose not to give up our freedom.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 04:07 am
It is not a fact that there is no militia. That Oralloy doesn't like the 1903 Militia Act is not evidence that it is invalid.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 04:55 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
It is not a fact that there is no militia.


There is no body in the US that meets the Constitution's definition of a militia.



Setanta wrote:
That Oralloy doesn't like the 1903 Militia Act is not evidence that it is invalid.


I don't recall ever expressing any dislike for the act, or ever claiming it was invalid.
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 04:58 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:
It is not a fact that there is no militia.


There is no body in the US that meets the Constitution's definition of a militia.

Well, then, that pretty much invalidates the 2d Amendment to the Constitution, doesn't it?
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 06:22 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
oralloy wrote:
There is no body in the US that meets the Constitution's definition of a militia.


Well, then, that pretty much invalidates the 2d Amendment to the Constitution, doesn't it?


The right of militiamen to buy machine guns, grenades/grenade launchers, anti-tank bazookas, and Stinger missiles (and to keep them all in their own homes) is currently not active. There are no militiamen to exercise the right.

But the right of non-militiamen to carry handguns when they go about in public is alive and well.

We're only a couple years away from the Supreme Court expanding Heller, and ruling that Americans everywhere have the right to carry handguns when they go about in public, even in our largest cities.

As for the militia, no sign of action on that front, but I would just love to see the US government bring back the militia so that Americans can begin stocking all our homes with some serious weaponry.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 06:25 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
As for the militia, no sign of action on that front, but I would just love to see the US government bring back the militia so that Americans can begin stocking all our homes with some serious weaponry.


Me too. Then there would be daily, maybe even hourly Sandy Hooks. Whole neighborhoods exterminated. Tens of thousands killed daily. That's what the US is all about.
oralloy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 06:25 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
oralloy wrote:
There is no body in the US that meets the Constitution's definition of a militia.


Well, then, that pretty much invalidates the 2d Amendment to the Constitution, doesn't it?


And actually, to answer your question in a slightly different way:

It doesn't invalidate the Second Amendment, it violates it.

The first half of the Second Amendment is a requirement that there always be a militia.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 06:31 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
oralloy wrote:
As for the militia, no sign of action on that front, but I would just love to see the US government bring back the militia so that Americans can begin stocking all our homes with some serious weaponry.


Me too. Then there would be daily, maybe even hourly Sandy Hooks. Whole neighborhoods exterminated. Tens of thousands killed daily. That's what the US is all about.


Most American gun owners are safe and responsible.
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 06:34 pm
@oralloy,
Mebbe, but it's all the unstable ones out there that scare everyone.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 03:01:40