Thoughts on gun control

Dartagnan wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Tim McVeigh did not take up arms against his government nor did he have any justification for doing so. He targeted his fellow citizens. Evenso, that the govenrment behaves like an idiot or errs in process is not the same thing as stripping the people of their rights.

Now you lefties can continue to nitpick the fine points that you insert here, or you can accept my statement in the spirit and context in which it was offered. I do not wish to see this thread reduced to still another Bush bashing thread. The thesis of this thread is gun control.

Now I've answered your question. Do you think the second amendment should be scrapped and the people should give up their guns?

Seems to me McVeigh took up arms because of various gov't actions, including Waco. And he attacked a federal bldg. In his mind, at least, it was an appropriate response.

Besides, where in the Constitution does it sat that one's private arsenal can only be used when the gov't is "stripping the people of their rights"?

As I said, McVeigh had no justification for what he did. He nevertheless targeted civilians to punish the government. Terrorists of all stripes tend to do that.

As to your second statement, I have no clue what you're trying to say there. I don't think I've said anything like that.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Foxfyre:

Quote:
...you can accept my statement in the spirit and context in which it was offered.

My whole problem with the gun nuts is that they seem to overreact to attempts at gun control legislation, in the "spirit and context" it is offered.
No one wants your frikkin guns, man. They license and regulate a lot of sensitive items and issues, from driving automobiles to fishing to the depth of holes you can dig in certain counties - why don't you think there needs to be (at least an attempt at) regulation of guns?

That's not at all unreasonable. The fly in the ointment, however, is the functional mechanism of proposed regulation - unintended consequences and all that.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Foxfyre:

Quote:
...you can accept my statement in the spirit and context in which it was offered.

My whole problem with the gun nuts is that they seem to overreact to attempts at gun control legislation, in the "spirit and context" it is offered.
No one wants your frikkin guns, man. They license and regulate a lot of sensitive items and issues, from driving automobiles to fishing to the depth of holes you can dig in certain counties - why don't you think there needs to be (at least an attempt at) regulation of guns?

There is no constitutional right to own or drive an automobile however nor is there any constitutional right to hunt or fish other than on your own property if zoning restrictions allow that nor is there any constitutional right to dig a hole anywhere. All these things are privileges afforded by society.

And while I have no problems whatsoever with the government restricting what people can legally do with the guns they own, I have huge problems with the government restricting what guns I may own and keep in my possession on my private property.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The testosterone levels on this thread are amazing.

I'm just going to go where the bears aren't, thank you very much.

U better go where the CRIMINALS aren 't,
while u r at it.
David[/b]

0 Replies

Many people that see the U.S. government as being out of bounds when it comes to limiting it's citizens firepower have no qualms about endorsing the same government's attempted limitations of other countrie's weaponery.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Many people that see the U.S. government as being out of bounds when it comes to limiting it's citizens firepower have no qualms about endorsing the same government's attempted limitations of other countrie's weaponery.

This is true.

The other countries have no rights
under the US Constitution.

We DO

David

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Many people that see the U.S. government as being out of bounds when it comes to limiting it's citizens firepower have no qualms about endorsing the same government's attempted limitations of other countrie's weaponery.

It goes back to somebody's previous post either here or on another thread today--I can't remember which.

You do not want to put a gun into the hands of a serial killer predisposed to using guns to kill people randomly nor do you want a firearm in the hands of an angry drunken maniac. In these cases, I have no problems whatsoever with limiting a citizen's firepower. But then I think those who break the law or clearly demontrate they are a danger to themselves or others should lose certain rights as appropriate.

Similarly, I think those nations who have demonstrated poor citizenship in the world must be held accountable for their lawlessness as judged by their behavior. Thus nuclear weapons in the possession of Canada or the United States who have demonstrated good world citizenship for an entire Century are no concern to any law abiding country.

A nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranian nutso leading that government or a Saddam Hussein or other opportunistic heads of state is a matter of major concern for all law abiding people who don't think they'll get however many virgins if they martyr themselves for Allah or some other such notion.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

snood wrote:
Foxfyre:

Quote:
...you can accept my statement in the spirit and context in which it was offered.

My whole problem with the gun nuts is that they seem to overreact to attempts at gun control legislation, in the "spirit and context" it is offered.
No one wants your frikkin guns, man. They license and regulate a lot of sensitive items and issues, from driving automobiles to fishing to the depth of holes you can dig in certain counties - why don't you think there needs to be (at least an attempt at) regulation of guns?

There is no constitutional right to own or drive an automobile however nor is there any constitutional right to hunt or fish other than on your own property if zoning restrictions allow that nor is there any constitutional right to dig a hole anywhere.
All these things are privileges afforded by society.
And while I have no problems whatsoever with the government restricting what people can legally do with the guns they own, I have huge problems with the government restricting what guns I may own and keep in my possession on my private property.

I must respectfully dissent
from the proposition that one 's basic
constitutional rights ( like self defense and access to the means thereof )
are granted by SOCIETY.

That is the diametrical opposite of John Locke 's
philosophy ( beloved of the Founding Fathers )
as set forth in his 2nd Treatise on Civil Government in 1690,
wherein he asserts that human existence PRECEDED
the existence of government, and that governments
had only those powers that were GRANTED TO THEM
by the individuals who created them, by agreement.

This is the philosophy of the 9th n 10th Amendments
of the US Constitution.

That is what makes a free country,
instead of a country whose citizens can do only
what society ( presumably, thru its henchman, government )
condescends to allow,
like King Henry 8th throwing bones over his shoulder
to his dogs, from his banquet table.

We need to be very stingy
in the power that we citizens grant to society,
or to its henchman, government.
David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
snood wrote:
Foxfyre:

Quote:
...you can accept my statement in the spirit and context in which it was offered.

My whole problem with the gun nuts is that they seem to overreact to attempts at gun control legislation, in the "spirit and context" it is offered.
No one wants your frikkin guns, man. They license and regulate a lot of sensitive items and issues, from driving automobiles to fishing to the depth of holes you can dig in certain counties - why don't you think there needs to be (at least an attempt at) regulation of guns?

There is no constitutional right to own or drive an automobile however nor is there any constitutional right to hunt or fish other than on your own property if zoning restrictions allow that nor is there any constitutional right to dig a hole anywhere.
All these things are privileges afforded by society.
And while I have no problems whatsoever with the government restricting what people can legally do with the guns they own, I have huge problems with the government restricting what guns I may own and keep in my possession on my private property.

I must respectfully dissent
from the proposition that one 's basic
constitutional rights ( like self defense and access to the means thereof )
are granted by SOCIETY.

That is the diametrical opposite of John Locke 's
philosophy ( beloved of the Founding Fathers )
as set forth in his 2nd Treatise on Civil Government in 1690,
wherein he asserts that human existence PRECEDED
the existence of government, and that governments
had only those powers that were GRANTED TO THEM
by the individuals who created them, by agreement.]

This is the philosophy of the 9th n 10th Amendments
of the US Constitution.

That is what makes a free country,
instead of a country whose citizens can do only
what society ( presumably, thru its henchman, government )
condescends to allow,
like King Henry 8th throwing bones over his shoulder
to his dogs, from his banquet table.

We need to be very stingy
in the power that we citizens grant to society,
or to its henchman, government.
David

I may have quoted John Locke more than any other member on A2K, but nothing I have said in any way compromises the principles he sets forth nor anything you said in response.

But what in the world are civilized people but a society? And what is a Democratic Republic but a society that has chosen to be a people of order, decency, and justice as defined by law? And that law is by the consent of the people. The highest law is our Constitution, also by consent of the people, which guarantees that our government must afford certain principles of order, decency, and justice and cannot dismiss these on a whim of a particular Congress or Presidency or state legislature or city hall.

When you buy private property, Lockean principles do not allow you to ignore zoning restrictions or to do things with your property that impedes the peace or property or rights of your neighbor. There are good reasons to restrict certain farm animals from a particular neighborhood or prohibit you from installing a rendering plant in your front yard. These are restrictions you accept when you buy your property.

There is no constitutional provision that allows you to operate a motorboat on a lake designated sailboats only or for you to hunt on a game preserve or destroy an endangered species. All these things are governed by laws within the society in which you choose to live, work, or play.

The constitution does provide the right to keep and bear arms and I do. And I will put up a hell of a fight before I would give up that right or the right to defend myself and mine however is necessary to do that.

But do you interpret the Second Amendment as the right to carry a gun, concealed or not concealed into a school building or courthouse when the law prohibits that? Does the government have a right to regulate concealed carry? And should there be any restrictions on the fire power that an individual should be able to have? Are you comfortable with a Sherman tank or a 105 recoilless rifle in your alcoholic neighbor's back yard?

There are all the thorny little issues that come up when we determine to govern ourselves by laws that promote decency, order, and justice. And they all deserve to be debated toward the interest of achieving consensus on the most profitable ways for us to govern ourselves without giving up our unalienable, legal, civil, or Constitutional rights.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
snood wrote:
Foxfyre:

Quote:
...you can accept my statement in the spirit and context in which it was offered.

My whole problem with the gun nuts is that they seem to overreact to attempts at gun control legislation, in the "spirit and context" it is offered.
No one wants your frikkin guns, man. They license and regulate a lot of sensitive items and issues, from driving automobiles to fishing to the depth of holes you can dig in certain counties - why don't you think there needs to be (at least an attempt at) regulation of guns?

There is no constitutional right to own or drive an automobile however nor is there any constitutional right to hunt or fish other than on your own property if zoning restrictions allow that nor is there any constitutional right to dig a hole anywhere.
All these things are privileges afforded by society.
And while I have no problems whatsoever with the government restricting what people can legally do with the guns they own, I have huge problems with the government restricting what guns I may own and keep in my possession on my private property.

I must respectfully dissent
from the proposition that one 's basic
constitutional rights ( like self defense and access to the means thereof )
are granted by SOCIETY.

That is the diametrical opposite of John Locke 's
philosophy ( beloved of the Founding Fathers )
as set forth in his 2nd Treatise on Civil Government in 1690,
wherein he asserts that human existence PRECEDED
the existence of government, and that governments
had only those powers that were GRANTED TO THEM
by the individuals who created them, by agreement.]

This is the philosophy of the 9th n 10th Amendments
of the US Constitution.

That is what makes a free country,
instead of a country whose citizens can do only
what society ( presumably, thru its henchman, government )
condescends to allow,
like King Henry 8th throwing bones over his shoulder
to his dogs, from his banquet table.

We need to be very stingy
in the power that we citizens grant to society,
or to its henchman, government.
David

I may have quoted John Locke
more than any other member on A2K,
but nothing I have said in any way compromises the principles he sets forth nor anything you said in response.

Do u DENY that the fundamental proposition
of Locke 's philosophy, as set forth in his
2nd Treatise on Civil Government,
is that human existence PRECEDED
the existence of government, and that governments
had only those powers that were GRANTED TO THEM
by the individuals who created them, by agreement,
and that the exercise of any other powers is USURPATION ?
David

0 Replies

Could you speak up?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Could you speak up?

I suspect David and I are sort of arguing on the same side of the fence though I am willing to allow society to regulate itself more than he seems to be willing.

I can't be sure though because I'm not 100% sure what he said. Smile

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Could you speak up?

In face-to-face, oral conversation,
we can use manual gestures, facial expressions,
body language and vocal inflections
to more clearly express our points.

We cannot do this in posting the written word.
If we can elucidate our meaning by coloration
or font size to emfasize our more important points,
then I believe that we shud do so.

It is not intended as shouting,
but rather facilitating an understanding.
David

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Could you speak up?

I suspect David and I are sort of arguing on the same side of the fence though I am willing to allow society to regulate itself more than he seems to be willing.

I can't be sure though because I'm not 100% sure what he said.

It is of the greatest importance to society,
but MORE importantly to citizens AS INDIVDUALS,
that we be STINGY with the authority
that we grant to society and to its henchman, government,
for that power can be turned against US.
Societies have been very deleterious to the citizens
who live within them. Think of the Turks and the Armenians,
the Germans n the Jews, Janet Reno and the folks at Waco, Texas
or Janet Reno and Randy Weaver, his murdered wife n child.

Governments are most loathe indeed
to relinquish power once thay 've acquired it.
How many Germans wud have been disposed
to ask der Fuhrer to relinquish the emergency powers
he got after the Reichstag fire ?

I feel bad that I was not clear.
I tried to be.

David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

How many Germans wud have been disposed
to ask der Fuhrer to relinquish the emergency powers
he got after the Reichstag fire ?

About § 48 Weimar Constitution

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I think part of what bothers me about the frothing-at-the-mouth of the gun nuts is the pretense that their concern is solely out of some patriotic sense of civic duty - some sense of resisting the evil imperialists who would come and take their rightfully-owned guns.

That might be part of it, but what never gets talked about is how pitiful it is for these people to be so fearful of someone coming to take away their guns. Seems so craven, to be in such an uproar over their guns. Almost like someone's threatening to castrate them, or something.

Bigot.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Foxfyre:

Quote:
...you can accept my statement in the spirit and context in which it was offered.

My whole problem with the gun nuts is that they seem to overreact to attempts at gun control legislation, in the "spirit and context" it is offered.
No one wants your frikkin guns, man. They license and regulate a lot of sensitive items and issues, from driving automobiles to fishing to the depth of holes you can dig in certain counties - why don't you think there needs to be (at least an attempt at) regulation of guns?

When they try to pass laws that outlaw guns, they are trying to take away guns.

You "saying they don't want to do that" interspersed with bigoted name calling isn't about to fool me into thinking they aren't trying to do just that.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And should there be any restrictions on the fire power that an individual should be able to have?

Not if those restrictions violate the Second Amendment.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And should there be any restrictions on the fire power that an individual should be able to have?

Not if those restrictions violate the Second Amendment.

One thing that the second amendment did not do was to define arms. At the time the Constitution was written, the military didn't have much that the average farmer could not have nor were there any local ordinances such as no guns in courthouses or school houses, etc.

Now some things have indeed changed in our modern society and there is a huge disparity in the weaponry available to the military and what the aerage farmer would normally have.

So my question remains: would you be comfortable with your drunken neighbor who flunked anger management having access to a Bradley tank or 105 Recoilless rifle in his back yard? Or is it reasonable to regulate this kind of weaponry? Is it reasonable to forbid firearms in bars, court houses, and/or public schools? Does this kind of regulation violate the spirit or letter of the Second Amendment?

These are reasonable discussions/debates to have.

I agree with David that we should be very stingy with the powers we give to government. But in a society made up of people with different morals and different value systems, it is necessary to also have laws to regulate what we will and will not tolerate as a society.

So what regulation, if any, is acceptable when it comes to guns?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So my question remains: would you be comfortable with your drunken neighbor who flunked anger management having access to a Bradley tank or 105 Recoilless rifle in his back yard? Or is it reasonable to regulate this kind of weaponry? Is it reasonable to forbid firearms in bars, court houses, and/or public schools? Does this kind of regulation violate the spirit or letter of the Second Amendment?

These are reasonable discussions/debates to have.

The biggest part of the problem has to be geting rid of the idiotic "War on Drugs". Most of the gang-banging and what not and other crime which people who live in cities view as gun problems are actually drug-war problems which would evaporate with rational drug laws.

0 Replies

Thoughts on gun control

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know