federal assault weapons ban

Ah, but au, there is only one statement.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

The need for a Militia went out at the very least 150 years ago.

Your opinion that they are not needed does not change the fact that the law requires that they be kept up, and that people be allowed to join if they choose.

au1929 wrote:

IMO today's militia is the National Guard and reserves.

They fail on two counts. Since they deploy overseas, they are not the militia. Since members do not keep their arms at home, they are not the militia.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

cjhsa

I doubt one can get a restraining order, even a wife, without cause.

Problem is, they do not have a rigorous process to determine if there really is cause. The deprivation of a right would require such a process.

au1929 wrote:

An once of protection is worth a pound of cure.

That's no justification for a civil rights violation.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

I would argue however that the two statements are dependent on each other.

The two statements are completely independent.

The first is a requirement that the government keep up the militia, and the second protects people's right to be in the militia and have appropriate weapons.

0 Replies

oralloy
Civil right violation. What civil rights violation. Would you also consider taking someone into custody on suspicion a civil right violation?
Did you take the time to read the articles posted. They are among the many we see in the news on a daily basis. I would consider taking a life a far greater civil rights violation than confiscating some guns. I would also note that if the charges are proven to be groundless the guns will be returned. However, the lives taken never will be.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote

Quote:

Your opinion that they are not needed does not change the fact that the law requires that they be kept up, and that people be allowed to join if they choose.

Could you tell me where one could go to join up? Rolling Eyes

There is no Militia in the US and has not been probably since the days of the Alamo, and that wasn't even in the US. In fact I have grave doubts whether a militia would be legal in the US at this time.

0 Replies

So if militia is not legal, possession of private guns becomes illegal.
I like this line of reasoning.
The Amendmant has to be rewritten to reflect modern conditions, it seems to me.

I could start the thing off with a form of words:

"A well-regulated militia now being unnecessary and the idea being an historical anachronism, the right of the people to bear arms is now rescinded."

Do you think it could catch on?

0 Replies

Considering the Republican Party is much more respectful of second amendment rights than the Democratic, I will only refer you to our recent elections, at all levels, for your answer.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Considering the Republican Party is much more respectful of second amendment rights than the Democratic, I will only refer you to our recent elections, at all levels, for your answer.

A nice answer and politely put, if I may say so.

But if Republicans are more respectful of Second Amendment rights, and the Amendment were to be changed, would that respect cause them much heartsearching before compliance? To help prevent another Waco, say?

I think it is a shame, too, to consider this a party issue. Does it not transcend party lines?

0 Replies

To prevent another Waco? What? That should fall sqarely on the back of Janet Reno, not the people who died (and they were "wackos" as well). A totally botched and mismanaged scenario.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

To prevent another Waco? What? That should fall sqarely on the back of Janet Reno, not the people who died (and they were "wackos" as well). A totally botched and mismanaged scenario.

Not disputed, but beside the point. Which is, that none of that would have happened if there had been no guns inside the building.

0 Replies

Mctag wrote

Quote:

Not disputed, but beside the point. Which is, that none of that would have happened if there had been no guns inside the building.

The had them because they were a Militia Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

But if Republicans are more respectful of Second Amendment rights, and the Amendment were to be changed, would that respect cause them much heartsearching before compliance? To help prevent another Waco, say?

I think it is a shame, too, to consider this a party issue. Does it not transcend party lines?

Well, this Republican would comply with laws based on the Constitution. With considerable regret, but no heartseaching involved.

It is a shame, and there are notable exceptions (largely regional) in both directions, but in practice, it really is a party issue.

Interpretations are like anything else. You don't absolutely reject a conclusion with which you disagree, but you are more apt to scrutinize those with which you disagree, than otherwise.

I'm a bookkeeper. I add columns of numbers. I get the total I expect and call it done. If I get an unexpected or undesirable result, darn right I recheck my figures. In other words, not blindness; just a bias.

0 Replies

Why is everyone so afraid of guns? Why aren't people afraid of the animators? I don't get it.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Why is everyone so afraid of guns? Why aren't people afraid of the animators? I don't get it.

it's not that people are afraid of guns cj. at least, i'm not, i own a couple. it's what crimanal, unbalanced, p.o.ed or the self proclaimed righteous do with them.

i don't know what it's like up there in the valley, but down here in l.a., in manhatten where i lived and in the south where i grew up, i've had guns pointed and fired at me more than once.

and i'm a mellow guy. i don't go looking for trouble. some people don't care about that.

i don't care if some guy wants to go obliterate a watermelon or beer cans to get a rush. it's the gangster lookin' to make his bones that is a danger to my wife, family, community and myself. and in fact, it's a danger to you.

and if that means "the gun enthusiast" has to do without the blinginess of packin' what the military has, too bad.

you'd feel the same way if you'd walked a mile in my shoes.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Why is everyone so afraid of guns? Why aren't people afraid of the animators? I don't get it.

Human nature is one thing you can't change.

I can see the attraction in guns, and the pleasure in handling them. One of my favourite museums is the Kelvingrove in Glasgow, where you can see a marvellous collection of knives, swords, crossbows, muskets, and more modern weapons. They are fascinating and very collectable.

However, when kids or people who are temporarily unbalanced can easily get them, or people of malevolent intent, then they are a danger to the rest of society. That is why I think guns should not be readily available, and should only be kept under controlled circumstances, if at all, and only by people who have a professional need to use them.

0 Replies

http://www.roughwheelers.com/montego/gun_cam.html

0 Replies

That website is a long-winded illustration of the old saw "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
True of course as far as it goes, which is not very far at all when you think about it.

Here's one: "People sometimes get mad and irrational, or just frightened or panicked and when they do, they look around for a weapon. If they can find a gun they may use it."

If you are happy with the level of gun crime, and accidents involving guns, in the States then nothing has to change. If you are not happy, then either human nature has to change, or the ready supply of guns and ammunition has to. That's how I see it.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

That website is a long-winded illustration of the old saw "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
True of course as far as it goes, which is not very far at all when you think about it.

Here's one: "People sometimes get mad and irrational, or just frightened or panicked and when they do, they look around for a weapon. If they can find a gun they may use it."

If you are happy with the level of gun crime, and accidents involving guns, in the States then nothing has to change. If you are not happy, then either human nature has to change, or the ready supply of guns and ammunition has to. That's how I see it.

that was my point as well, mctag.

i trust the gun.

but, i've had enough experiences in life to tell me that not every person can be trusted. therefore, i do not want "instant gratification" access to guns. i do not want the average citizen strapped hotter than law enforcement.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

i trust the gun.

but, i've had enough experiences in life to tell me that not every person can be trusted. therefore, i do not want "instant gratification" access to guns. i do not want the average citizen strapped hotter than law enforcement.

Why, I happen to agree. You know that certain persons are prohibited from owning firearms, of course. The prohibition, of course, is based on past behavior. Convicted felons lose that particular right. Should the rest of us? I would say, no.

Now, McTag has concerns about the person who becomes temporarily, and violently irrational. I share that concern, and if he's bigger, younger, and more athletic than I, I want the means to protect myself from him. That seems to be a difference of viewpoint, and I'm not planning to budge. In any case, my expection is that crimes, and crimes of violence with or without firearms are comitted by repeat offenders, not someone suddenly going beserk after thirty or forty years with a spotless record. The abberations are not cause for all to surrender the right.

0 Replies

federal assault weapons ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know