7
   

THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

 
 
maporsche
 
  0  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 07:25 pm
Advocate wrote:
Halfback wrote:
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



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


There's a lot of phony stats on both sides of this argument.

Halfback, good job fighting the fight.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 09:40 pm
Advocate:

I think we got into a little tiff before about your erroneous presumption that I have done no reading or research on a given topic. I still find it a little condescending when you assume that. I don't treat your opinion in such a cavalier manner, I expect reciprocal treatment.

My interest in the subject of gun control extends back for many years. Mainly because I consider it a bell weather topic vis-a-vis erosion of the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

The Constitution would not have been passed, in all probability, had it not been for the Bill of Rights. Since the Constitution is the instrument that supposedly guides our Government, and incidently, the document I swore to uphold against "...all enemies, both foreign and domestic.." all those years ago.... I have a vested interest in assuring myself that our "Big Brother" Government does not exceed the size of it's britches.

The Constitution sets up a pretty strong "Central Government". There was genuine fear, back then, that the Government would assume too much power. Hence the Bill of Rights. Without actually saying so, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the citizens a means by which a tyrannical Government, should one appear, be thwarted.

The other view of the 2nd amendment is the right of self defence. I would wish that all of humanity would live together in peace and harmony and that no man would raise his hand against another. But you know, and I know, that as long as there is but one soul who does not "buy into" that program, the concept MUST be consigned to the realm of "wishful thinking".

Which leaves me back to my statement: " (Weapons) ...are the last insurance policy I never expect to need." But it's nice to know the option is available, if necessary.

Halfback
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 05:57 am
The anti-hunters are all anti-gunners too. While 2A isn't about hunting, the antis see it as an opportunity to get little old lady bird lovers to inadvertantly vote away the right to bear arms.

The dove hunt issue in Michigan was a step in that direction.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 09:39 am
Half, no one, or virtually no one, is taking guns away from people (especially in N. Carolina). The courts overwhelmingly disagree with your interpretation of the 2A.

BTW, the constitution was enacted before the B of Rs were enacted.

We may be closer to agreement that it appears. I think that all of us, except for Dave, believe that gun control is constitutional. So what is your argument?
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 11:16 am
Which courts? Where? and what cases? I'm curious.

The Bill of Rights were being "assembled" as ratification of the Constitution went on in the various States. The BoR had been "promised" as an addendum to the Constitution, almost as an incentive for ratification of the Constitution. (This was in a time when a politician's promise meant something.)

Gun control is necessary in instances where it is shown that the gun owner(s) are irresponsible in that ownership. This is, by needs, a thin and clearly defined group. The aforementioned criminals, mentally defective, and the like. Otherwise, leave it ALONE!

Halfback
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 11:32 am
Advocate wrote:
Half, no one, or virtually no one, is taking guns away from people (especially in N. Carolina). The courts overwhelmingly disagree with your interpretation of the 2A.

BTW, the constitution was enacted before the B of Rs were enacted.

We may be closer to agreement that it appears. I think that all of us, except for Dave, believe that gun control is constitutional. So what is your argument?


What courts exactly? The 6th? Gimme a break.... I can buy an AR-15 with a 30-round clip and the USSC doesn't seem to give ****...
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 11:41 am
cjhsa wrote:

What courts exactly? The 6th? Gimme a break.... I can buy an AR-15 with a 30-round clip and the USSC doesn't seem to give ****...



Or a 100 round drum.

Or 10 100 round drums.

Or 1000 rounds of .223 for around $230 bucks.


Most courts seems to be on our side.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 12:16 pm
See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/, which, inter alia, discusses Miller.

One can buy automatic weapons that are not SPECIFICALLY banned in the law.

Dave would be correct in saying that gun control is unconstitutional if 2A gave an unfettered right to bear. It does not.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 12:49 pm
I think we have come to the consensus that some gun control is necessary in very specific and clearly defined circumstances, with the provision that this level of control does NOT interfere with the spirit of the 2nd amendment.

I can live with that. Where I draw the line is where someone (or group of someones) advocate more than I have specified above. Then it violates the spirit of the 2nd amendment.

I recently finished a couple of rather thick books that supposedly related the "landmark" cases in the Supreme Court over the last 200+ years as it related to the Bill of Rights and other amendments to the Constitution. Not one case was related to the 2nd amendment. Cool

Does that mean the 2nd amendment has never been tested at the SC level? Or were the authors deliberately avoiding the issue through personal preference or some political agenda? Confused

All that means is that I will have to research elsewhere and with more difficulty. Oh well. So many books, too little time! Laughing

Halfback
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 12:59 pm
My prior cite when askew.

Miller is a Supreme Court case.

FindLaw says:


In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7


Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms,8 and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made.9 At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 01:43 pm
Here Advocate, I cooked up some dove. Have a bite!
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 06:55 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Here Advocate, I cooked up some dove. Have a bite!


You are such a hard ass. I promise I won't take your guns. I imagine you regarding them as phallic symbols.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2007 07:00 am
Advocate wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
Here Advocate, I cooked up some dove. Have a bite!


You are such a hard ass. I promise I won't take your guns.

I imagine you regarding them as phallic symbols.

U anti-freedom types DO imagine that.
Mud-slinging is all u have.

Guns have value; life-saving value; ( that means greater value than cash, jewels, and gold ).
U choose to pretend that thay do not;
i.e., that people have not saved their lives
by being properly equipped to deal with danger.

U try to pervert that image, because that 's the best u can do.
U know that u lose on the historical and jurisprudential merits of the argument.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2007 07:44 am
Anyone and everyone has the right
to defend himself from violence,
regardless of the consequences.

There is no right more fundamental than that.
David
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2007 08:14 am
Dave, cj, Half, et al., are you guys dense? Neither I nor almost anyone else wish to seize your guns.

I, and, happily, most others (including the NRA) favor some gun control. Moreover, the courts have overwhelmingly upheld the legality of gun control. This, I know, is a bitter pill for Dave, who has dedicated his life to denying the facts of the matter.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2007 09:21 am
Advocate wrote:


Quote:
Dave, cj, Half, et al., are you guys dense?
Neither I nor almost anyone else wish to seize your guns.

Uh-huh; got any BRIDGES for sale ?
maybe some land in Florida ?




Quote:
I, and, happily, most others (including the NRA) favor some gun control.

As I have pointed out in the past,
more gun control means more cash for the NRA leader;
the worse the gun control, the more the cash.



Quote:

Moreover, the courts have overwhelmingly upheld the legality of gun control. This, I know, is a bitter pill for Dave, who has dedicated his life to denying the facts of the matter.

Which courts ?
Which cases do u have in mind ?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2007 09:35 am
Dave, how does gun control enrich the leader of the NRA? This might make for a big expose'.

See the discussion of Miller above.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2007 10:25 am
Halfback wrote:


Quote:
Advocate:

I think we got into a little tiff before about your erroneous presumption
that I have done no reading or research on a given topic.
I still find it a little condescending when you assume that.

That 's just his nature.





Quote:
I don't treat your opinion in such a cavalier manner,
I expect reciprocal treatment.

Whether he is capable of that
is an open question.



Quote:
My interest in the subject of gun control extends back for many years.
Mainly because I consider it a bell weather topic vis-a-vis erosion of the rights
guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

So stipulated.




Quote:
The Constitution would not have been passed, in all probability,
had it not been for the Bill of Rights.

Indeed.
It was stopped in Virginia by the Anti-federalists, led by Patrick Henry,
who threatened to call a second constitutional convention,
if no bill of rights were enacted.






Quote:
Since the Constitution is the instrument that supposedly guides our Government,
and incidently, the document I swore to uphold
against "...all enemies, both foreign and domestic.."
all those years ago.... I have a vested interest in assuring myself
that our "Big Brother" Government does not exceed the size of it's britches.

ONLY the Constitution stands between us
and a government of unlimited power
such as those of Stalin, Hitler and Saddam.





Quote:
The Constitution sets up a pretty strong "Central Government".
There was genuine fear, back then, that the Government would assume too much power.

INDEED.
That was the subject of much discussion
in the press of the day, which still survives;
hence, we KNOW the thoughts of the Founders;
NONE of whom -- not even one of them --
expressed any desire for gun control,
nor any recognition of the legitimacy thereof.

Among the surviving writings
is a letter from Thomas Jefferson to his 12 year old nephew,
whom Jefferson counsels always to take his gun with him
when he goes out for a walk, and to become proficient with it.
That advice can STILL save your life,
( tho criminals unarmed victims ).




Quote:
Hence the Bill of Rights.
Without actually saying so,
the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the citizens a means
by which a tyrannical Government, should one appear, be thwarted.

Thay were still breathing hard and nursing their wounds
from the overthrow of tyranny, when thay wrote the Bill of Rights.
Thay knew tyranny up close n personal.
The 2nd Amendment was the eraser on the federal pencil.

By assuring an armed populace,
the Founders physically put sovereignty into the hands of the citizens

.
US Supreme Ct Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) said:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered
as the Palladium of the liberties of the republic since it offers
a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers;

and will generally...enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
His view was adopted by the US Supreme Ct in US v. MILLER,
together with that of Judge Thomas Cooley who reiterated that idea, adding:
"The meaning of the provision...is that the people ...shall have
the right to keep and bear arms and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose."


The Constitution no more allows any government to control guns than
to edit the Bible or control who has one.







Quote:
The other view of the 2nd amendment is the right of self defence.

When the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were enacted,
during the 17OOs, there were NO POLICE anywhere in the USA,
nor had police existed in Colonial America, nor in England.
The concept of a police force first BEGAN during the 18OOs
(both in America and in England).
Accordingly, during the 17OOs, if one were attacked by a violent criminal,
a predatory animal, or madman, it was as imperative as it was
paradigmatic that he have the means to handle the situation himself,
and this was the world that the Founding Fathers knew
when they drew the social and political contract that is the US Constitution.






Quote:
I would wish that all of humanity would live together in peace and harmony and that no man would raise his hand against another. But you know, and I know, that as long as there is but one soul who does not "buy into" that program, the concept MUST be consigned to the realm of "wishful thinking".

Which leaves me back to my statement:
" (Weapons) ...are the last insurance policy I never expect to need."
But it's nice to know the option is available, if necessary.

Halfback

SO STIPULATED
David
0 Replies
 
2PacksAday
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2007 10:35 am
Yep, I am also enjoying Halfbacks reasonable and common sense filled posts.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2007 10:46 am
Advocate wrote:
Dave, how does gun control enrich the leader of the NRA? This might make for a big expose'.

See the discussion of Miller above.

This shows that u have not read my answers to your prior posts.

When the citizens saw that government ( local or federal )
was threatening more oppressive gun control laws,
thay reacted with shock, alarm and revulsion.
Thay went out and stocked up on guns n ammo.
Thay bought lots of equipment to make their own ammo.

The more severe the threat of gun control,
the more paying members run for protection to the NRA.

Clinton 's misadventure with the so-called "assault weapons" ban
not only cost the Democrats control of both Houses of Congress
for the first time since Roosevelt,
it ALSO sent NRA membership to record highs.
When this happens, its paid leader goes into executive session
with the Board of Directors and demands a bigger cut of the pie,
showing soaring membership revenues:
hence, gun control is good for the finances of the NRA.

David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
Harrisburg Pa. Outdoor Show "Postponed" - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 02:30:48