THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Dave, you infer that gun control is illegal because the B of Rs doesn't provide for it, or even mention it. That is downright silly. Since gun control is not proscribed, it is legal.

0 Replies

Anyone who advocates gun control is probably going to make money off the deal....

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Anyone who advocates gun control is probably going to make money off the deal....

Hoplophobes are afraid of weapons.

Some people are afraid of freedom.

David

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Dave, you infer that gun control is illegal because the B of Rs doesn't provide for it, or even mention it.
That is downright silly. Since gun control is not proscribed, it is legal.

1 ) That is not what I said, nor inferred. It IS proscribed.
( Do u have trouble with reading comprehension ? )

Here is what I said
( I guess u did not read it the first time; probably not this time, either. [ as if it mattered what u read] ):

The 2nd Amendment simply denies any authority to government
to legislate in regard of possession of weapons,
the same way that government has no authority
to choose your religion for u and make u get to church on time.

David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Dave, you infer that gun control is illegal because the B of Rs doesn't provide for it, or even mention it.
That is downright silly. Since gun control is not proscribed, it is legal.

1 ) That is not what I said, nor inferred. It IS proscribed.
( Do u have trouble with reading comprehension ? )

Here is what I said
( I guess u did not read it the first time; probably not this time, either. [ as if it mattered what u read] ):

The 2nd Amendment simply denies any authority to government
to legislate in regard of possession of weapons,
the same way that government has no authority
to choose your religion for u and make u get to church on time.

David

RONG!!!! The right to bear is clearly in the context of a militia. The amendment would not have mentioned "militia" were this not the case. The courts have overwhelmingly upheld this view. Rant and rave all you want, it is not going to change.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Dave, you infer that gun control is illegal because the B of Rs doesn't provide for it, or even mention it.
That is downright silly. Since gun control is not proscribed, it is legal.

1 ) That is not what I said, nor inferred. It IS proscribed.
( Do u have trouble with reading comprehension ? )

Here is what I said
( I guess u did not read it the first time; probably not this time, either. [ as if it mattered what u read] ):

The 2nd Amendment simply denies any authority to government
to legislate in regard of possession of weapons,
the same way that government has no authority
to choose your religion for u and make u get to church on time.

David

RONG!!!!
Quote:
The right to bear is clearly in the context of a militia.
The amendment would not have mentioned "militia" were this not the case.

The militia of Article I Section 8, subsections 15 and 16
are clearly public, government sponsored,
government controlled SELECTED militia.

The militia of the 2nd Amendment are "well regulated militia";
i.e., private militia, like volunteer fire fire depts.
or volunteer libraries. That was the nomenclature of the age,
and of earlier ages leading up to that.
Examples of such militia are the Free French in WWII,
the merchants' militia defending their stores, during the Los Angeles riots,
religious based militia in the Mid East, Afganistan.

In other words,
the intendment was that government shall have no authority
to legislate concerning guns,
and the armed citizens can freely organize themselves into militia,
if thay so choose. ( Remember, there were no police back then,
neither in America, nor in England. )

Quote:
Rant and rave all you want, it is not going to change.

Is that Y thay r panicking in Washington ??

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Dave, you infer that gun control is illegal because the B of Rs doesn't provide for it, or even mention it.
That is downright silly. Since gun control is not proscribed, it is legal.

1 ) That is not what I said, nor inferred. It IS proscribed.
( Do u have trouble with reading comprehension ? )

Here is what I said
( I guess u did not read it the first time; probably not this time, either. [ as if it mattered what u read] ):

The 2nd Amendment simply denies any authority to government
to legislate in regard of possession of weapons,
the same way that government has no authority
to choose your religion for u and make u get to church on time.

David

RONG!!!! The right to bear is clearly in the context of a militia. The amendment would not have mentioned "militia" were this not the case. The courts have overwhelmingly upheld this view. Rant and rave all you want, it is not going to change.

What in the hell? Bullshit it is. It mentioned militias because free men are allowed to form them against their own corrupt government if they choose. Where would they get those guns to form those militias if they didn't own them themselves? Hmmm?? 2A has two distinct clauses. I honestly hope the idiots in D.C. get their case before SCOTUS so they can go home and crawl under a rock in fear of their loss of control over their own law abiding cititens.

0 Replies

I believe there is a fundamental constitutional right to keep nerve gas in my home.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I believe there is a fundamental constitutional right to keep nerve gas in my home.

Not until we annex Canada.

0 Replies

With any right comes the understanding that there is a responsibility inherent with that right. Those who prove themselves not able to demonstrate responsibility in the application of that right, should be, and are, deprived of that right.

If you own a gun and you demonstrate irresponsibility in the exercise of that right, you loose your right to bear arms. Period! ....and rightly so.

Same could be said, for instance, in the "right" to drive a motor vehicle. If you demonstrate irresponsibility in the exercise of driving, you will loose your "right" to drive. Again, rightly so.

Where I get a little testy, is when the "do-gooders" decide that all gun owners should be punished for the irresponsibility demonstrated by the "ten percenters". Mad

Push come to shove, considering the number of people killed in the US by guns vs motor vehicles, the case could be made to ban driving rather than banning guns. It would be "easier" to push through Congress, there is no mention in the Constitution about the "right" to drive. Confused

What the anti-gun souls are, in effect, trying to tell me is; Despite the fact that your Constitution allows you the option of keeping weapons, we don't consider you responsible enough to warrent that privledge. Razz

A hearty "Bite me!" should express my contempt for that idea. Laughing

Halfback

0 Replies

Blatham:

You can keep whatever you wish in your home as far as I am concerned. I WILL hold you responsible for the safety of your neighbors, however. (As will the local authorities, I'm sure.)

Do be careful, atropine (sp?) is hard to come by on the open market. Laughing

Halfback

0 Replies

Further commentary on the Cars vs Guns stats. I did NOT, in the above, attempt to make the stats look better than they are. However:

ALL car deaths are attributed to accidents! (That there are rare cases of murder by motor vehicle, is beyond doubt....but they are rare enough to be statistically insignificant.) Not all deaths by gunfire are "accidental". Of the rough average of 13,000 deaths by gunfire per annum, only 1,500 on the average, are by "accidental" discharge of a weapon. The other 11,500 deaths by gunfire are deliberate.

Apparently, then, it can be surmised that if the "do-gooder" case rests on "saving lives", much more along these lines can be accomplished by banning driving of motor vehicles. (43,000 vs 1,500 accidental deaths.)

As for the 11,500 deliberate murders, there is no doubt that having guns handy as the weapon of opportunity adds to that figure. I suspect, however, if we are talking about anti-social types (and anyone who murders has to be a bit sociopathic), I submit that the lack of "the weapon of opportunity" will deter them only long enough to find another weapon.

So let's say we completely ban guns, and we "save" half of the murder rate, 5,750 (I don't believe it would be that high a "save" rate, but just for the sake of argument....) We STILL would be better off concentrating our efforts on banning driving by a long margin, like 6 to 1!

Lastly, banning guns will not stop the acquisition of guns amongst the aforementioned sociopaths ("bad guys"), only serve to make it a bit harder. The trade off is to render the law abiding members of society defenceless against the "bad guys".

Sorry anti-gun lobby, your argument is valid in a "warm and fuzzy", "feel good" kind of atmosphere, but the results would greatly offset the benefits of such restrictive gun laws.

Halfback

0 Replies

Halfback wrote:

Blatham:

You can keep whatever you wish in your home as far as I am concerned. I WILL hold you responsible for the safety of your neighbors, however. (As will the local authorities, I'm sure.)

Do be careful, atropine (sp?) is hard to come by on the open market.

Halfback

Could I keep a small jar of it in a holster, concealed?

0 Replies

Probably would be more effective than pepper spray. However, there is always the fear of "backwash"......

It would, of course, have to carry a Government required warning label:

WARNING! DO NOT USE IN ENCLOSED SPACES! Laughing

....and you would need a permit, of course.

Halfback

0 Replies

Half, what are you going on about? Car possession control and car control in general are legal.

I contend that gun and nerve gas controls are legal as well.

How do you think gun owners have been collectively punished? Is it by bans on the possession of certain automatic weapons, or bans on gun possession by ex-cons, children, and the mentally diseased?

I am not ready for Dodge City, or worse.

0 Replies

I was speaking against those who wish to ban guns in general and overall. We have settled, you and I, that some control is necessary for those ten percenters that are irresponsible with weapons. (....and felons, and crazies, etc.)

There are certain weapons allowed at this time that I have my doubts about, but I always go with the cause of freedom. Confused

As for the "Dodge City" bit, I heard that line (or similar) used when Florida greatly weakened it's stance on gun control. Never materialized. Usually you come up with better arguments than that one. :wink:

Halfback

0 Replies

Half, relax, virtually no one is calling for a complete ban on guns.

The thing about FL is in dispute. The guns nuts came out with a lot of phony stats, and this is being countered.

0 Replies

With other phony stats? Laughing

Apparently (and in general), I must surmise that stats provided by the other side in any case are "phony" and those provided by one's own side are accurate and "True". Confused

It that what I am reading here? :wink:

Kinda like: One man's treasure is another man's junk!

Halfback

0 Replies

Besides, if you look at the Florida example as a control in an experiment, given that the "streets were going to run red with blood", one would think that any statistics leaning in that direction would quickly be apparent.

That some time has gone by and nothing of statistical significance has appeared, EITHER WAY, we have to assume that the initial premise was in error. (i.e. red streets...)

As time goes by, however, other factors take over the "control" in our experiment. For instance, an increase, over time, of drug related gang violence, could "spoil" our little experiment, in that gun control or no gun control would have little or no effect on street gang violence. (It's just a for instance..... an example.)

See what I'm getting at?

Halfback

0 Replies

Halfback wrote:

With other phony stats?

Apparently (and in general), I must surmise that stats provided by the other side in any case are "phony" and those provided by one's own side are accurate and "True".

It that what I am reading here? :wink:

Kinda like: One man's treasure is another man's junk!

Halfback

Do a little research and you will see what I mean.

0 Replies

THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know