The gun control issue will never be resolved until we admit the 2nd Amendment is flawed and start negotiating with empathy and understanding.
Daddy was right. Ain't no use in talking about religion, politics, whether that dress makes yer wife look fat, or guns... unless you're sitting among a bunch of hunters all dressed up in their "out-to-kill" finery, oiling stocks and cutting cross-hatches into their bullet points.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments226 - Clavos
"I'm not persuaded by the gun as penis substitute line either, mostly because I've always thought Freud was too crazy to be much of a therapist, but it doesn't really undermine the argument to say that people don't talk about it. If it were true, why would they?"
Freud also postulated that such associations took place in the subconscious.
But Jack knows that....
227 - Christopher Rose
Clavos, is it only me that finds it funny when a member of the pro-gun lobby isn't a straight shooter?
228 - Jack Burten
Since some of you want me to cite what I already know to be true from personal experience, why don't we turn it around. Show me irrefutable proof that the shooters involved in barfights were packing illegally, or that the spouse who plugged his or her mate didn't have the prequisite papers to pull the trigger responsibly.
You can't.
I hope you don't spend much time in Las Vegas if you're willing to bet such a poor hand.
Florida, the first state to pass the new wave of CCW laws about 30 years ago keeps a very close view on those same people. Their experience over the past years: Crime rates involving CCW holders has held steady at about 0.02 percent.
Now, that's any kind of crime including cheating on income taxes, which has nothing to do with a gun.
And 0.02 percent translates out to 2 people out of a thousand. Not exactly the crime wave you've been going on about, eh?
Actually, out of the half million or so that Florida has issued they have cancelled 109. Virgina has issued about 50,000 and have cancelled none. Arizona has issued about 63,000 and has cancelled none. Of course, since those reports came out they may have cancelled a few, but everyone gets the picture.
In Oregon only 4 people out of 14,000 (0.03 percent) have been convicted of a crime with a gun. In Texas out of a quarter million CCW holders only 100 have been found guilty of a felony (not even necessarily with a gun). Again, that is only 5 people out of every 1000 CCW holders.
And in a column by Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune he wrote:
Indiana, which has about 350,000 permit holders, canceled 921 last year, or about one-fourth of 1 percent of the total. Maj. Karen Butts, commander of the records division of the state police, says, "I can't think of any that were revoked for a firearms homicide." Among Utah's 40,000 licensees, only five have lost their privileges because of a conviction for murder or attempted murder.
I guess I "can" eh?
BTW... all this can be found in the free download Gun Facts.
If you're truely interested in getting the facts instead of hysterical info this is the place to go.
And for the moderator, I tried dozens of times to get the board to take the Gun Facts in the standard way but it wouldn't work. I think it's because of the dot info after the url. ???
229 - Christopher Rose
Will someone tell me these things:
1. How many weapons legally owned by the civilian population are there?
2. How often are these weapons used per year?
230 - Jack Burton
I don't have the stomach for killing humans, even bad ones, anymore.
I pray to God that I never have to... but I'd rather need a gun and have one than need one and not have one.
Back a few years ago we had two escaped hardcore convicts from Mississippi roaming around our county. They had already gotten into several running gun battles with the local cops/state police and were vowing "never to be taken alive."
Our youngest was at a church camp and the two men were spotted far to close to the camp for the comfort of the camp directors. They called all the parents at about 9 Pm and said come and get 'em, right now.
My wife and I both dropped the guns into the holsters and took off. We helped establish the inner parimeter while some of the more expereinced rifle men in the church worked the outer security. We all stayed until the last child was picked up.
On the way back home our then 12 year old said, "I am really glad that I have parents that can protect me when I need it."
Neither my wife or I had any intention that night of "killing" a human, even a bad one. But we were not going to let a bad one terrorize or kill any innocent children, including our own.
Other people may choose differently and that's their full right. But when they presume to make my decisions for me as to how best to protect my family they have crossed a line that is better not crossed.
BTW, the rest of the story: The next day they got caught and gave it up like babies once they knew they were caught in the nutgrinder.
231 - Christopher Rose
I fixed up your link for you, Jack; it fell foul of the anti-spam system.
232 - Jack Burton
I'd feel better about it all if the NRA weren't such a ... politicized participant that they leave a bad taste in my mouth 99% of the time. They COULD do such a good job of education & awareness if they'd just stop being panderers for the GOP extreme right.
NRA Backs Both Sides of Aisle
That means the NRA, which sits on a campaign war chest of $20 million, is expecting to endorse as many as 60 Democrats in House and Senate elections, about the same number it endorsed in every national election since 2002
In this year's election, the group is backing [Democrats such as] Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, Oklahoma Rep. Dan Boren, Tennessee Rep. John Tanner and West Virginia Rep. Alan Mollohan, among others. In gubernatorial races, the NRA has endorsed Democrats in Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wyoming, and Bill Richardson, the former Clinton energy secretary and cabinet member, in New Mexico.
233 - Christopher Rose
I can relate to that story, Jack, and sure, given the current situation in the USA, it would be just as bad a decision to disarm the civilian population now as it would to abandon Iraq in its current condition.
On the other hand, I still believe it is long past time that the police stepped up to the plate and got crime in the USA under control.
I simply don't accept that it can't be done and it is pretty obvious that current strategies aren't working as the prison population continues to grow and prison itself is little more than Crime University. That in the context of one of the most aggressive and wide-ranging legal systems in the modern world.
234 - Leif Rakur
To Oldsmoblogger, 215:
The Founders and the Constitution certainly didn't find the definition of militia in 10 USC 311. In 1787, John Adams gave the definition of militia of the Founders in these words (notice that training WAS required).
"By virtue of the laws of the country, every male inhabitant between sixteen and sixty years of age, is enrolled in a company, and a regiment of militia completely organized with all its officers. He is enjoined to keep always in his house, and at his own expense, a firelock in good order, a powder horn, a pound of powder, twelve flints, four-and-twenty balls of lead, a cartridge box, and a knapsack; so that the whole country is ready to march for its own defence upon the first signal of alarm. These companies and regiments are obliged to assemble at certain times in every year, under the orders of their officers, for the inspection of their arms and ammunition, and to perform their exercises and manoeuvres. (Appendix to A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, John Adams, 1787)
235 - Jack Burton
but it doesn't really undermine the argument to say that people don't talk about it. If it were true, why would they?
I'm sorry Chris but I just couldn't follow what you were trying to say there.
I also think it makes your argument less attractive to throw around terms such as bigot.
Well, my differnt opinion is that people who link guns and penises quite well meet the definition of "bigot." It is a reflexive spewing of words that are designed to do one thing only, insult those who are gun enthusiasts.
Do you really think it adds depth to the thread? If not, then why do you find it necessary to post a response to me, who's only defending gun owners, and not to those who bring it up first?
As you know, I don't agree with the pro guns line but I do agree with the concept of basic manners...
Well, at this point in time the only thing I can discern about your concept is that using the word penis to describe gunowners is acceptable, but defending against it is bad manners.
If I have misread you then I am sure you'll make it clearer.
236 - Christopher Rose
Jack, if you really don't get it, you're just confirming my view that weapons shouldn't be widely allowed due to the extreme naivety of the citizenry.
How many men do you know that would say I feel inadequate about my masculinity and manhood so I've bought a weapon in order to shore up my ego? Frankly, if I meet one who does, I may shoot them myself!
It isn't reflexive to link gun and penis, what's reflexive is not to listen to other people's perspectives.
what I don't get is how you can pour such energy and articulacy into defending your position whilst somehow either ignoring or apparently failing to understand any opposing arguments. Is that deliberate?
237 - Jack Burton
Will someone tell me these things:
1. How many weapons legally owned by the civilian population are there?
2. How often are these weapons used per year?
From about a week ago...
GENEVA (Reuters)- The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.
U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based .Graduate Institute of International Studies
Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005. (About 450,000)
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Guns prevent about 2.5 million crimes a year. Most often (about 90 percent) the gun is never fired and blood is never shed.
--Targeting guns, Dr. Gary Kleck.
And yes, I know that a lot of people who don't like guns don't like Kleck either, but Marvin Wolfgang
, a very anti-gun researcher who is accorded the highest accolades had this to say about Klecks numbers:
It is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary information.
So what conclusions can be drawn?
1) 99.6 percent of guns in the U.S. are not being misused.
2) There are some people out there that just don't belong in a civilized society.
3) Far more people are saved by guns than not. And that is a "good thing."
238 - Catey
Chris, Jack is saying that someone here used male genitalia to describe gun owners, and that was allowed. But his use of the word bigot to defend himself against those who used the word for male genitalia to describe gun owners was not allowed.
Your doing such a great job, thumbs up!!!!
239 - Jack Burton
On the other hand, I still believe it is long past time that the police stepped up to the plate and got crime in the USA under control.
Read the following from the liberal People's Paradise of San Francisco
and then get back to us...
240 - Jack Burton
I can relate to that story, Jack,
You can relate... but what would you do in the same situation. Would your daughter feel safer in the car with you... or with us?
241 - Travis Lee
Well which is it Chris,
Gun control or "you'll shoot 'em"?
Why do you think that whatever fuzzy notion you have of gun-control won't end with you losing your right to be armed?
How do you think that house to house searches will not result in police searching your house on a regular basis?
Do you believe you have a RIGHT to be armed? yes or no?
If you do, how dare you presume that you may be armed but other people should be disallowed?
Your side has not honestly addressed a single point brought up yet.
Guns are scary, guns are bad, you guys scare me... wah wah wah.
You want a law, PASS A LAW, pass 20,000 more laws aimed not at criminals but at your fellow citizens. you'll have to scuttle the Constitution not only of the US, but of numerous States,
Passing a law is entirely different than bringing it to pass.
How do you not get that?
242 - Clavos
Travis,
Chris does NOT have a right to be armed; he's a British citizen and doesn't live in the USA.
243 - Leif Rakur
To Dustin, 218:
The state militias of 1787, when the Constitution was written, and of 1789, when the Bill of Rights was written, were not voluntary entities. Militia service was obligatory under state militia law for males within specified age ranges.
The Second Amendment restrains the federal government from abolishing the people's state militia systems.
244 - Christopher Rose
Jack, thanks for the facts in the first part of your #237. As for the rest of that comment, refer back to #233.
Catey, not for the first time, you have managed to get hold of the wrong end of a very short stick. Jack's terminology was allowed or else you wouldn't have been able to read it. Wake up! Or better yet, keep dreaming and Ruvy will be along to explain it all to you shortly.
Travis, you're the best argument yet for not allowing weapons into wide ownership. None of your rambling answer appears to be connected either to the conversation or, indeed, reality in any way shape or form. Please do rejoin the conversation any time you can but, as for me, it's late and I'm off to bed. Sweet dreams!
245 - Catey
Clavos has got yer back Chris, just don't come to any sudden stops.
246 - Travis Lee
He's a Brit?!
Well, then... no wonder.
247 - Jack Burton
It isn't reflexive to link gun and penis, what's reflexive is not to listen to other people's perspectives.
So it I say that people who don't like guns have loose pussies you're okay with that?
And if you can give a cite where I "didn't listen" I'd like to see it. Personally I think that each time I answered someone I have been careful to quote the pertinent info from their post in order to keep track for others as to why I am answering the way I am.
If you can find differntly on a number of my posts then please do so. But be specific.
You can also count the cites that I have given to back up what I say. It would be interesting to compare it to the cites that you've posted to back up your posts, eh?
what I don't get is how you can pour such energy and articulacy into defending your position whilst somehow either ignoring or apparently failing to understand any opposing arguments. Is that deliberate?
1) I understand quite well.
2) I haven't seen any real "arguments" from the majority of the people. I've seen emotional responses, I've seen "I thinks", I've seen lots of stuff, but rational discussion -- no.
Lets take for one simple example. You.
You posted that the average person could not handle guns. No cite, no authority, no anything but just an opinion. I replied asking you where all the dead bodies were. A reasonable question. If the average person cannot be trusted with a gun then where ARE all the dead bodies?
You ducked it. You ignored it. It was an great opportunity for you to clarify your thoughts.
What did you do?
You came back again with almost the same quote. The average person could not be trusted with a gun. I replied that time with statistics that showed that 99.7 percent of all guns were in the hands of law abiding, non-killing people. I asked you why you said what you said when the facts were against you.
What did you do? You ducked again. You could have disputed my stats, you could have disputed my understanding of the stats, you could have thrown in the towel in defeat... but you didn't do any of those. You came back with an answer saying that you just didn't want to discuss it with me.
Specifically you said in answer: Talking about weapons with you is like talking about religion with a faithist.
Please specifically point out just where an "opposing arguement" can be found in that sentence. If you can't find one, is that deliberate?
Now... I'm always happy to leave it to the readers to decided who "is not listening to other people's perspectives" and "ignoring ... any opposing arguments"
248 - Catey
Well, reprimanded then.
249 - Clavos
I liked the loose pussies line.
Some of the broads might object, though.
250 - Oldsmoblogger
Leif, thank you for staying engaged.
I don't claim the Founders had recourse to 10 USC 311. I refer the reader to it because there is neither reference to training or to some putative organization. The collective rights argument is a 20th Century invention. There is no credible evidence for it contemporary to the framing of the Constitution. Even Saul Cornell, in the recent Federalist Society online discussion, could do no better than an individual called Scribble Scrabble, in one letter published in one newspaper. (Professor Cornell and the other collective-rights advocates got their collective lunches eaten, it says here. Check it out.)
I'll append a couple of quotes, one each from a leading Federalist and a leading Anti-Federalist:
Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia: "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." -- Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
James Madison, of Virginia: The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation . . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46
This is admittedly a small sample, but I have yet to see any suggestion that any of the Founders had the notion that the several states would have any more right than the federal government to establish a select militia or abrogate the pre-existing and inherent individual right to arms, expansive view of the police power or no.
And in any case, because the right _is_ inherent to the individual and pre-exists any law made by man (one may argue the interpretation of the Second all the live-long day but good luck trying to refute Locke and Jefferson in this crowd), no law made by man can in justice abrogate it, and therefore no free man or woman can be bound in conscience to obey it.
As an aside to the tavern, regarding the (ahem) contributions of one moonraven: Rule Number One of teh Intarwebs is that if you don't feed the trolls, they eventually go away.
251 - Jack Burton
"Well, reprimanded then."
Catey, you're trying to use logic here where it won't work.
A gun hater can use the most vile language, say the worst things, and in general abuse a gun enthusisast in any way and they get praised for it. "Speaking truth to power," you know.
And it's all got to be true since it's about a gun owner and heaven knows how we kill and eat babies for breakfast. We deserve to be abused.
But call one of them a "bigot"? My goodness. They get vapor lock and the fainties right away. Out come the handkerchiefs and the tears start in flowing.
And then the "correcting" posts start. "You know, you really shouldn't use such vicious language as "bigot. Someone feelings are going to be hurt."
252 - Clavos
"Rule Number One of teh Intarwebs is that if you don't feed the trolls, they eventually go away."
Good luck with mr on that one.
She's been trolling here on BC for a year this month.
253 - Catey
I do believe you are right Jack.
254 - gonzo marx
"Rule Number One of teh Intarwebs is that if you don't feed the trolls, they eventually go away."
heh...some of us never seem to go away...yours truly is like a good mold...scrub all you like, paint over it....we still come back for more
sorry...didn't mean to interrupt the flames...
we now return you to your regularly scheduled pointless bitchfest
Excelsior?
255 - Jack Burton
Here is an intersting resource for those interested in this issue...
In Search of the Second Amendment is the first documentary on the American right to keep and bear arms. It stars twelve professors of constitutional law, and scholars such as Steve Halbrook, Dave Kopel, Clayton Cramer and Don Kates. The story of the American right to arms is told by these experts, and illustrated by re-enactments and original historical documents, many never before filmed. The film also explores the contributions of the African-American experience, including the 14th Amendment (1868). Two civil rights workers discuss the untold story of their movement: how civil rights workers armed themselves and fought off Klan attacks. Produced and directed by David T. Hardy.
256 - gonzo marx
interesting link, Jack..how's the olde Pork Chop Express running?
but Jack does raise the intrinsic root of the Question here
do "We the People" have the Individual Right to self defense?
i'm the wrong one to Ask in this occasion..i'd like to see a return to carrying swords and legal Duels, makes for people being more polite, if nothing else...
that being said, the current trend among some to want laws regulating firearms in the name of public safety is understandable, the sheeple attempting to legislate away the Wolves by banning sharp teeth, it misses the crucial nut of the dilemma by forgetting that , "oh shit, we're talking about insane criminal scum here...that's why they brought an electric mini-gun to rob a liquor store!"... what's breaking a few gun laws mean to the likes of them?
to my Thinking..the crux of the matter is in the "well regulated militia" bit...figure out what that means and you solve the problem
does it mean just the police force and military? - doubtful, in some instances the Founders planned against the government being able to exert totalitarian control over the People... how about just having to register as a weapon owner like you would your car, or family pet?
i know the usual argument is that then the government knows you have a weapon(s) and will round you up first!
but there is also the deterrent factor here...you have 100 million registered weapon owners and it proves you ain't got enough bullets in all the government to take them out cleanly
i am not certain what the Answer is here, but i do know that a civil and thoughtful Conversation on the topic is part and parcel of basic civic duty... i just don't see this Issue as that critical at this point in time
your mileage may vary...
Excelsior?
257 - Jack Burton
how about just having to register as a weapon owner like you would your car, or family pet?
Or register as a church goer? A newspaper reader? And only "registered" people can write a letter to their Congressman?
It's all in the reflexes, you know.
258 - gonzo marx
i hear yer point , Jack...but ya gotta have a license ta drive...the case can be made that immediate possibility of deadly force should at least be just as registered...and it appears, prima facia, to follow the wording of the Amendment to the freaking literal letter
if driving is a "privilege" which can be revoked at whim...then one can argue that the current protections of weapon ownership (unless you are a felon, and you are of appropriate age, you can buy a firearm) simple registration does not infringe on any right to keep and bear your arms as you see fit as your part of the "well regulated militia"
both sides appear to raise valid concerns, as i said earlier...the actual language of the second amendment in it's entirety is the only real clue and guideline we have on this thorny Question
Excelsior?
259 - Jack Burton
do "We the People" have the Individual Right to self defense?
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature."
- Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin, 'The Rights of the Colonists', (actual title; 'The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting'). Nov. 20, 1772
"Excusable homicides are in some cases not quite unblamable. These should subject the party to marks of contrition; viz., the killing of a man in defence of property; so also in defence of one's person, which is a species of excusable homicide"
- Thomas Jefferson, Note to Crimes Bill. Washington ed. i, 152. Ford ed., ii, 209. (1779). [5579. MURDER, Excusable. -- JCE5579.
"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."
- John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. [As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
260 - REMF
#245;
Dittos, Catey. But Chris doesn't have to be as careful as Dave Nalle.
261 - gonzo marx
Jack in #259 - exactly my point as to why we should have private ownership of weapons and the inalienable right to self defense
that's my personal View
all i have been saying is that we live up to the "we regulated militia" part..and that the real heart of this Conversation should really be about how we, as a society, handle that part of it...
catch the drift?
Excelsior?
262 - bliffle
Gee, this gun discussion seems to have swamped out all other discussions on BC.
263 - Clavos
"Dittos, Catey. But Chris doesn't have to be as careful as Dave Nalle."
Yes he does, emmy.
I've got my nose up both their asses; sometimes simultaneously, which satisfies my kinks, but grosses them out.
Sigh. Nobody understands you when you're strange. Maybe I'll go find me a sheep.
Got any sheep up there in shitkicker country, emmy?
264 - Jack Burton
i hear yer point , Jack...but ya gotta have a license ta drive...
Not really. In virtually every state you need no license to drive if you are on your own property. Nor do you need to register the vehicle.
the case can be made that immediate possibility of deadly force should at least be just as registered...
People have been dealing out immediately deadly force for ages without needing to register their weapons of choice.
I never read in my Bible a quote from Cain that said, "Criky, Abel, where'd you get that bloody Glock?" :-)
and it appears, prima facia, to follow the wording of the Amendment to the freaking literal letter
I'm not sure where you get the word "register" in the Amendment. You have to read these things in the language of their day, not ours. Well regulated meant well trained, nothing else.
if driving is a "privilege" which can be revoked at whim...
Driving is a privilege but it can hardly be "revoked at whim." We do have due process here, remember.
then one can argue that the current protections of weapon ownership (unless you are a felon, and you are of appropriate age, you can buy a firearm) simple registration does not infringe on any right to keep and bear your arms as you see fit as your part of the "well regulated militia"
Name one other Constitutionally specified right that is subject to "registration", simply or otherwise.
And do you know that Illinois is just weeks away from banning virtually all semi-auto guns, including rifles, handgun, and shotguns? This means Uncle Joe's deer hunting rifle in the back closet, and the neighbors skeet shooting long gun, and every pistol except for revolvers.
Illinois has an extremely rigid licensening system for gun owners. Just how do you think they are going to enforce this ban?
They already have the name of every gun owner in their computer. "Simple registration" eh? Simple door-to-door pickup, eh?
"Mr. Jones, we see here you have three rifles that fit the criteria. Please give them to us."
265 - Clavos
"Name one other Constitutionally specified right that is subject to "registration", simply or otherwise."
Voting.
266 - gonzo marx
whew...ok Jack..i'll go one round of the Dance...
"Not really. In virtually every state you need no license to drive if you are on your own property. Nor do you need to register the vehicle."
and in many states you don't need any kind of license to have that firearm on your own property (tho zoning laws may limit you firing it in town, etc)..i get your point, but you seem to recognize, but not mention, that taking that car off your own property places you under the restrictions of law...
"People have been dealing out immediately deadly force for ages without needing to register their weapons of choice.
I never read in my Bible a quote from Cain that said, "Criky, Abel, where'd you get that bloody Glock?" :-)"
well do i know this one...and in some states i DO have to register if i move there, but those are intensely learned skills that most don't possess...with a day or two training just about anyone who can see can use a pistol with reasonable deadly effect...hence the problems with handguns for many folks..other issues revolve around concealment
"I'm not sure where you get the word "register" in the Amendment. You have to read these things in the language of their day, not ours. Well regulated meant well trained, nothing else."
please cite your source on what well regulated meant...that's an interpretation i'm not familiar with...interesting but doubtful...as careful as the Founders were with their Words..they well knew the difference between training and regulation and would have used the appropriate term
"Driving is a privilege but it can hardly be "revoked at whim." We do have due process here, remember."
glad you think so...and remember that you brought up due process...we'll be coming back to it...
"Name one other Constitutionally specified right that is subject to "registration", simply or otherwise."
strawman, imo...no other Right has the term "well regulated" in it, does it?
point of Order: i only mention one proposed solution here, the process of registration...come up with another that satisfies the "well regulated militia" part of the language and we can talk about that...i'm open to all reasonable suggestions..that's the only thing discussions of this topic are really good for, eh?
"They already have the name of every gun owner in their computer. "Simple registration" eh? Simple door-to-door pickup, eh?
"Mr. Jones, we see here you have three rifles that fit the criteria. Please give them to us.""
remember previously when i mentioned "due process"?
Excelsior?
267 - Jack Burton
all i have been saying is that we live up to the "we regulated militia" part..and that the real heart of this Conversation should really be about how we, as a society, handle that part of it...
We have mandatory gun training in school starting about the fourth grade and advancing thru high school. We bring back the rifle clubs that were in so many high schools 40 years ago.
We're letting Hollywood, the thug rappers, and the "street" teach our kids about guns. No wonder we're having such a problem.
We do away with the stupid state laws that take a Goldielocks approach to gun control. "This gun is too biiiig, and this gun is too smaaaallll... ohhh, we can't find a gun that is just riiiight."
And... nope... won't say it. It's too late at night and my discernment filter isn't kicking on as well as it should. I'll stop here.
268 - Jack Burton
Voting.
It's always a pleasure to know that I helped educate at least one person a day and raised him from the mirey muck of civic ignorance. :-)
This spins it a little different than what I would, but the basic info is pretty correct .
269 - Clavos
Hairsplitting. I noticed you did that with gonzo, too, with the straw man about driving on private property.
I didn't say voting for president, did I?
u.s. constitution:
article 1, section 2:
"Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."
"article XVII:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."
The point is: the right to vote IS guaranteed by the constitution, and registration IS required to do so.
meh.
270 - Jack Burton
and in many states you don't need any kind of license to have that firearm on your own property (tho zoning laws may limit you firing it in town, etc)..i get your point, but you seem to recognize, but not mention, that taking that car off your own property places you under the restrictions of law...
Not neccessarily. If I tow my car from my home to the shop it doesn't have to be registered. It's when I put the car into actual use on the road that the government can sink it's tax claws into my wallet. And that is 99 percent of the purpose of auto registration anyway.
But you're right. Not requiring registration in your home and on your property, and requiring a license (not necessarily for the gun itself) off property is the way many states work it.
Is it Consitutional? No. Do most people live with it? Yes.
well do i know this one...and in some states i DO have to register if i move there, but those are intensely learned skills that most don't possess...with a day or two training just about anyone who can see can use a pistol with reasonable deadly effect...hence the problems with handguns for many folks..other issues revolve around concealment
Lot's of small concealable items are deadly without any training. If the nanny state registered all of them it would certainly take up enought of their time to ensure they would not be up to further mischief.
please cite your source on what well regulated meant...that's an interpretation i'm not familiar with...interesting but doubtful...as careful as the Founders were with their Words..they well knew the difference between training and regulation and would have used the appropriate term
"Training" meant "regulation." Smack you on the forehead.
Take a look at this
And I can assure you that anyone in the military who has dealt extensively with training knows that "regulation" still means the same thing today as it did back then.
remember previously when i mentioned "due process"?
You mean the same due process clause that California ignorned when they banned the dreaded "assault rifle" and forced everyone to either move or sell theirs out of state.
BTW, you could give lessons to quite a number of folk here on how to dialogue. Signficant parts of the concept have escaped them.
271 - Jack Burton
Hairsplitting. I noticed you did that with gonzo, too, with the straw man about driving on private property.
I refer to it as being precise...a concept that a lot of people have problems with. And please tell us how not registering a car on private property is a "strawman"? I am sure others want to know also. Be specific. Walk us thru the entire thread about that topic so we can understand.
The point is: the right to vote IS guaranteed by the constitution, and registration IS required to do so.
Nice try but neither one of your two examples from the Constitution say that the people have a right to vote. You may call it hairsplitting but just what do you think the courts do?
And the courts have ruled there is not a Constitutional right. If you have a problem with that, and you obviously do, take it up with the courts, not me. I can't help you any with that one.
272 - Clavos
I refer to it as being precise.
"You say potahto, I say potayto."
Refer to it any way you want, I say it's hairsplitting...a concept that a lot of people have problems with.
273 - Jack Burton
Refer to it any way you want, I say it's hairsplitting...a concept that a lot of people have problems with.
Fine... have problems with it. But when you're dealing with legal matters (as we are) then grownups realize that living in the real world requires living by the real world rules.
And precisness is what helps win in the arena of the court... not the ability to emote your "feelings."
Still haven't quite figured out just how I used a "strawman" yet, though, eh?
274 - Clavos
And you still haven't noticed that not once on this thread have I advocated restricting (not even more licensing) gun ownership, but you've typed me more than once as a "gun bigot."
Go ahead, check it out. I'll wait.
I received my first weapon for my eighth birthday, more than fifty years ago, and have owned weapons continuously since.
I said it upthread, and others have too: you hurt the cause more than you help, with your blowhard, arrogant attitude, and your facile, stereotypical assumptions.
Good luck with that.
I sincerely regret we're on the same side of the issue.
275 - REMF
"Got any sheep up there in shitkicker country, emmy?"
Come on up, flat-lander. I've got an extra pair of boxing gloves, let's go three rounds and find out who can fight and who can't.