Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 14:56:30 GMT -5
LMAO! Of course you and Nolesaint never approached the edge! You said ... Somalia ...  ? What did you mean by its inclusion? Nolesaint asked ... Who is going to defend you when the Muslims start flexing their muscles in the US? Don't kid yourself that day is coming... So you both seem to be anticipating a citizen based militia in your given neighborhoods to protect the hearth and home! I used a little poetic license to inject some humor into that concept. I wonder if nolesaint has cased out the local Mosques to know where to retaliate WHEN the big attack comes.... If humor didn't get injected, your collective posts would be a sad commentary on how you view this country and its citizens. I do agree they wouldn't send Seal Team Six - you'd get a visit from the remnants of the Devil's Brigade.  |
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,893
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Feb 5, 2014 15:57:52 GMT -5
Ah. Somalia was just a reference to the "Blackhawk Down" incident where a bunch of rag-tag yahoos with light arms caused havoc with one of our special forces units.
I'm all for humor...even at my expense. What's sad about how I view the country? You mean that I see big red flags everywhere? OK, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I didn't say anything was imminent just that you shouldn't ignore the possibility of things going awry. I bet the German Jews didn't believe the holocaust could happen to them. Why role the dice?
|
|
nolesaint
Team Captain
Posts: 1,894
Dislikes:
|
Post by nolesaint on Feb 5, 2014 16:09:53 GMT -5
Ok MP - you are cool with giving up our rights and liberties that you don't agree with and many of us are not. Well, good luck to you when the day of reckoning comes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 16:15:02 GMT -5
Ok MP - you are cool with giving up our rights and liberties that you don't agree with and many of us are not. Well, good luck to you when the day of reckoning comes. Yet another example of right wing overstatement - you guys are good! Which rights and liberties do I disagree with? |
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Feb 5, 2014 16:52:54 GMT -5
Ok MP - you are cool with giving up our rights and liberties that you don't agree with and many of us are not. Well, good luck to you when the day of reckoning comes. Yet another example of right wing overstatement - you guys are good! Which rights and liberties do I disagree with? Sounds like the Second Amendment. I will expand shortly. And, I will preface this by saying I am not predicting the need for any civil uprising just talking about how this thread started. It did seem to go down down a very extreme path. Sometimes that's the nature of a message board when sometimes 'jokes' or different references are taken out of the context in which they are meant. |
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886 
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Feb 5, 2014 16:56:55 GMT -5
My reaction to MP!  |
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Feb 5, 2014 17:03:45 GMT -5
You are certainly correct in your restatement of history re why the 2nd amendment was put in place. Let's go back and look at what weapons were in existence at the time - basically muskets and wheeled cannon. Do you think the founding fathers envisioned citizens keeping wheeled cannon on their homesteads? Muskets were a necessary household item for those citizens not living in the heart of a large city - people actually went hunting to gather food for their tables. The British had impounded muskets as an act to limit the extent and force of any revolution against their occupation. The Founders experienced that and put the 2nd amendment in place to prevent such impoundments in the future. Recreational shooting was not a practice - too expensive for sure. Let's move forward to today. Do you honestly think having an assault rifle in your home (AR-15 or AK-47) would in any way be a deterent, used to keep the government in check? If you think the founders wanted a viable deterent (I read that as wanting to be on a level playing field with a military response against our citizens) in every home why not fly the idea of having a fully automatic rifle up to the Supreme Court. How about an M203 single shot 40mm grenade launcher to stop a Government Humvee? Why stop there - I am sure some could afford a mothballed M1 Main Battle Tank - we all know the Government could use the money they could recoup in a "tanks for cash 2nd amendment Tea Party let's cut the deficit" party. The National Guard evolved from the concept of a citizen based military force to augment the standing army in a time of national need - like your vision of a Soviet invasion of the US. I wonder how many of those that hold an AR-15 in their homes, against the threat of some foreign invasion, belong to the National Guard - not many would be my guess. I’m glad you agree as to why the 2nd Amendment was put in place. But, you ask 'Did the Fathers envision keeping wheeled cannons?' First off, none of us can claim to know what they envisioned with regard to the specificity of arms - they just said 'arms', which can encompasses several things - if they meant muskets I assume they could have said that. But we all know that was the beauty of the Constitution - it was written to accommodate future, unforeseen events. However, I don’t think it’s out of the question that wealthy colonists or groups of colonists may have had access to cannons. And if they did, it wouldn’t have been for sport or even self-defense, it would have been exactly why we agree the Amendment was created. But that is not the point. What really matters is what they wrote: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The underlined clause is not ambiguous. It clearly states ‘arms’ as a collective and an unequivocal: ‘shall not be infringed’. Toward your point about an assault rifle (i.e., semi-automatics) being a deterrent vs a corrupt govt. Like somebody said, no, not against a small number of people, but if a large number of people were armed and a number of them had ‘assault’ rifles, then yes, it could make an impact. But again, your or my opinion on their effectiveness does not matter. The ‘shall not be infringed’ part is what matters. But using your argument, that even assault rifles would have no bearing in a struggle, to justify compromising the amendment, it appears that you are giving up on the original reason for this amendment and that the amendment is basically useless, archaic and only exists to give the impression of a perceived right for sport or personal self-defense. That’s certainly your right to believe, but I think many, many people would disagree and take issue that the liberal movement to limit the ownership of these ‘assault’ rifles most certainly does ‘infringe’ upon the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’. |
|
SIENA1971
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,776
Dislikes:
|
Post by SIENA1971 on Feb 5, 2014 17:16:30 GMT -5
Wayne LaPierre (NRA) learned all he needed to know while a student at Siena.
|
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Feb 5, 2014 17:38:00 GMT -5
Wayne LaPierre (NRA) learned all he needed to know while a student at Siena. OK - But what's your opinion on the subject? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 6:23:20 GMT -5
You are certainly correct in your restatement of history re why the 2nd amendment was put in place. Let's go back and look at what weapons were in existence at the time - basically muskets and wheeled cannon. Do you think the founding fathers envisioned citizens keeping wheeled cannon on their homesteads? Muskets were a necessary household item for those citizens not living in the heart of a large city - people actually went hunting to gather food for their tables. The British had impounded muskets as an act to limit the extent and force of any revolution against their occupation. The Founders experienced that and put the 2nd amendment in place to prevent such impoundments in the future. Recreational shooting was not a practice - too expensive for sure. Let's move forward to today. Do you honestly think having an assault rifle in your home (AR-15 or AK-47) would in any way be a deterent, used to keep the government in check? If you think the founders wanted a viable deterent (I read that as wanting to be on a level playing field with a military response against our citizens) in every home why not fly the idea of having a fully automatic rifle up to the Supreme Court. How about an M203 single shot 40mm grenade launcher to stop a Government Humvee? Why stop there - I am sure some could afford a mothballed M1 Main Battle Tank - we all know the Government could use the money they could recoup in a "tanks for cash 2nd amendment Tea Party let's cut the deficit" party. The National Guard evolved from the concept of a citizen based military force to augment the standing army in a time of national need - like your vision of a Soviet invasion of the US. I wonder how many of those that hold an AR-15 in their homes, against the threat of some foreign invasion, belong to the National Guard - not many would be my guess. I’m glad you agree as to why the 2nd Amendment was put in place. But, you ask 'Did the Fathers envision keeping wheeled cannons?' First off, none of us can claim to know what they envisioned with regard to the specificity of arms - they just said 'arms', which can encompasses several things - if they meant muskets I assume they could have said that. But we all know that was the beauty of the Constitution - it was written to accommodate future, unforeseen events. However, I don’t think it’s out of the question that wealthy colonists or groups of colonists may have had access to cannons. And if they did, it wouldn’t have been for sport or even self-defense, it would have been exactly why we agree the Amendment was created. But that is not the point. What really matters is what they wrote: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The underlined clause is not ambiguous. It clearly states ‘arms’ as a collective and an unequivocal: ‘shall not be infringed’. Toward your point about an assault rifle (i.e., semi-automatics) being a deterrent vs a corrupt govt. Like somebody said, no, not against a small number of people, but if a large number of people were armed and a number of them had ‘assault’ rifles, then yes, it could make an impact. But again, your or my opinion on their effectiveness does not matter. The ‘shall not be infringed’ part is what matters. But using your argument, that even assault rifles would have no bearing in a struggle, to justify compromising the amendment, it appears that you are giving up on the original reason for this amendment and that the amendment is basically useless, archaic and only exists to give the impression of a perceived right for sport or personal self-defense. That’s certainly your right to believe, but I think many, many people would disagree and take issue that the liberal movement to limit the ownership of these ‘assault’ rifles most certainly does ‘infringe’ upon the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’. Excellent post! Let's go back and clean up one thing. Nolesaint posted: "Ok MP - you are cool with giving up our rights and liberties that you don't agree with and many of us are not. Well, good luck to you when the day of reckoning comes." I have stated that I am not anti-gun or believe the 2nd amendment should be thrown out. I am opposed to the assault rifle genre - if that seems to indicate that I "am cool with giving up our rights and liberties that (I) don't agree with" it's a total misread and, IMO, a prime example of the type of overstatement many use to amplify their own position absent any real facts to refute the argument they don't like. Secondly, there seems to be a continuing theme in answering many of my posts - always a FOX video that is used to refute my points. Odd that the many other media outlets aren't used yet when those folks are challenged they do say they look at the other outlets. th24 must have FOX locked into his Google Glass! Now as to your excellent post. You seem to completely disregard the inconvenient (for your position) leading part of the amendment that you quoted - the part about "a well regulated militia". If there are two separate "freedoms" being put forth, why are they in one sentence? In order to have a citizen based militia, arms (muskets or whatever) would be needed in each home for rapid response to a perceived need. What do you think was meant by "well regulated"? Regulations impose limits - I believe the founders saw regional militias as potential loose cannons (pun intended) and wanted to ensure that each militia had some eyes on them - I don't think the founders were laying the groundwork for a "Survivalist" group network of assault rifle armed whackos anticipating a future negative turn by our elected Government. My take - militias were a necessity, and the only reason we achieved victory over the British forces occupying the country, that the Founders wanted preserved, even with a standing army in place as a first line of defense. In order to guarantee the feasibility of a militia, they specified that citizens could keep their arms. I would also argue that today's cry for more "gun control" falls in line with the "regulated" part of the amendment. In summary, I have not cool with throwing away our rights and liberties. Nolesaint has not yet answered me on that point. |
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Feb 6, 2014 8:01:46 GMT -5
Good point - I admit, I've always struggled with that. No time to respond now. I will address it later.
|
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,893
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Feb 6, 2014 9:07:44 GMT -5
Today's cry for more gun control is from groups who want to ban guns. Check ANY of the leading gc groups and that is their goal. Unlike the pro-gunners who are NOT asking for cannons, Laws rockets, etc. Looks like the slippery slope leans to the left.
Look, shootings are bad. Nobody wants that but let's look at the situations. All/most are by people who had some psych problems. That's a difficult one too. I get it. Here's the crux of the matter: we live in a free society where you need to take the bad with the good. You can't have freedom and prevent all bad things at the same time. It is a balance. Given the infinitesimal number of assault weapon based crimes I'd say it is pretty ineffective to spend time targeting them.
|
|
nolesaint
Team Captain
Posts: 1,894
Dislikes:
|
Post by nolesaint on Feb 6, 2014 9:59:28 GMT -5
MP wrote:
This is either sadly low level thinking or poorly written - which is it.
Let's dissect some of what you wrote:
I am not anti-gun or believe the 2nd amendment should be thrown out
But the you wrote this:
opposed to the assault rifle genre
How can ANYONE take that as anything other than:
cool with giving up our rights and liberties that (I) don't agree with
Do you support the 2nd Amendment or don't you? If you do then you have repeatedly communicated poorly. If you don't then you are cool with giving up our liberties. It can not be both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 11:05:15 GMT -5
MP wrote: This is either sadly low level thinking or poorly written - which is it. Let's dissect some of what you wrote: I am not anti-gun or believe the 2nd amendment should be thrown out But the you wrote this: opposed to the assault rifle genre How can ANYONE take that as anything other than: cool with giving up our rights and liberties that (I) don't agree with Do you support the 2nd Amendment or don't you? If you do then you have repeatedly communicated poorly. If you don't then you are cool with giving up our liberties. It can not be both.
Ok, I see it - in your world you view things black and white with no degrees in between. Fine! From my perspective, I don't see possession of an assault weapon as a right so I don't feel I am giving up anything if they were banned. However, I would oppose a ban on all guns based on my read of the 2nd Amendment. What is your view on a ban on fully automatic weapons (one was in existence until the law lapsed)?
Here are some thoughts on whether such a ban would be constitutional or not.
The federal courts have not given much previous guidance on whether a federal assault weapons ban would pass Second Amendment muster, but Winkler says he suspects one would be upheld by the Supreme Court.
“In the Heller case, the courts said a handgun ban is not constitutional because handguns are in ‘common use,’” which is a common standard in jurisprudence, Winkler said. “A shoulder-launched missile is not in common use for self-defense; a machine gun is not in common use. The assault rifle is a slightly more difficult question. … I suspect [the court] would uphold such a ban, especially after such high-profile shootings. And I suspect that many judges, like many other people, would believe you don’t need an assault weapon for self-defense.”
Note: Professor Adam Winkler is tenured in the UCLA School of Law
I would also add that true hunters would look with great disdain on a "hunter" with a fully automatic assault weapon to hunt deer or similar game. No sport in that scenario.
|
|
nolesaint
Team Captain
Posts: 1,894
Dislikes:
|
Post by nolesaint on Feb 6, 2014 13:24:30 GMT -5
MP - I am in favor of the Constitution and the language in it says "shall not be infringed" I guess I just trust in the people more than I do the government. And by that I mean a large unyielding bureaucracy that by it's nature rules always strives for what is right for everyone whilst continually trampling the rights and hurting the people for whom it is intended to create a better society.
The one fact that nobody on the left, or in the gun control crowd, has reasonably answered yet is this: why are there fewer violent crimes in states that protect the rights of gun owners. Do you have an answer for that?
|
|
? What did you mean by its inclusion? 
