| Author |
Message |
Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member
Username: Maranelloman
Post Number: 1688
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 12:58 pm: | |
Dave L, give it a rest. My point (perhaps not as obvious as I intended it to be) is that we need CRIMINAL control, and not more gun control. There are well over 22,000 gun laws on the books at the federal, state, & local levels in the US. And how much crime have they REALLY prevented? I say all most of them have ever done is make incompetent do-gooders who prefer to punish the law-abiding rather than the law-breaking feel good that they are "doing something".
If guns cause shootings, then matches cause arson.
Oh, and guns are not ONLY for killing. They are also for sport, i.e., target shooting. Wouldn't you agree.
No, my opinion is not the only one that matters. I regret that you came ot this conclusion just because I presented my point of view just as bluntly as you did... As for filling my 550...well, I am most definitely on record here as saying, many times, that if Americans just used 5% less gasoline and 5% less electricity, we could tell all the Arab bastards who want to kill us to go pound sand, and you could avoid being in harm's way in the Gulf. And I have put my $$ where my mouth is by significantly reducing our household gasoline & electricity consumption.
P.S.: Thanks for serving, and for keeping us free to have these debates! |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1785
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 12:18 pm: | |
DaveL:
What do you drive over the gulf? Wife's uncle is Roy "butch" Voris, a name you might be familiar with, an ex-naval pilot. Named your demonstration team after a bar.
Art |
Dave L (Davel)
Member
Username: Davel
Post Number: 272
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 11:58 am: | |
Dave..it addressed military weapons. I dont need to know im 1000% wrong. WOW....what a revelation. So only your opinion counts...your right all the time ...MAN I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. Nice insult on Iran considering how much time Ive flown over the gulf so you can fill up your 550. Heck im happy to do it. I love to fly. Thanks for the compliment. I addressed weapons that are normally used by the military, nothing else. We interpret the constitution all the time. Plenty of case law to back that up...have a nice Memorial Day. |
Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member
Username: Airbarton
Post Number: 522
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 9:29 am: | |
Art, I agree. |
Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member
Username: Arlie
Post Number: 1160
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 6:14 pm: | |
Art, my ideas on the liberal media is consistant with my ideas on the legal profession.
"Liberal media, by my definition, is a media that peddles its own agenda by presenting only those facts that verify THEIR agenda."
That's exactly what an attorney does for his client in the court room. No attorney is going to willingly tell the WHOLE truth if part of that truth will harm his client's case. If Joe Smith who earns $40,000 a year is accused of swindling company funds and his lawyer is trying to get him acquitted, do you think his lawyer will DELIBERATELY and WILLFULLY bring up the fact that Joe Smith recently bought a $60,000 boat or a $40,000 Cadillac that is stored at his cousin's country estate? Not likely, because that would bring up the question as to where he suddenly came up with the money to buy those items. No need in muddying up the waters so to speak.
Same thing with the liberal media and guns. They will never tell about the thousands of people who defend their lives and property with guns. But they will quickly tell you about ONE kid who shot his little brother with Grandpa's pistol. That will make the 6 o'clock news. The pro-gun news will barely make the back page of the newspaper.
|
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1762
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 5:15 pm: | |
Charles:
We need laws keeping those who shouldn't have them from getting them. |
Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member
Username: Airbarton
Post Number: 507
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 11:01 am: | |
Agreed Art! So instead of outlawing them lets just pick on the people that cannot own them responsibly. I have no problem at all with controlling who has access to them. I don't happen to agree with the all or nothing argument most of the anti-gun people propose. Your statement completely agrees with my position. We don't need laws against owning guns, we need laws governing how people use them! The nice thing is we already have laws governing how people use them so we don't need any new ones. |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1756
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 10:38 am: | |
Charles:
You're right most of the time guns don't kill people, it takes some sort of action with the gun to cause injury and death. Same is true for nukes, posion gas, you name it. Because these types of items make it easier for people to injure, kill, or cause great grief, most societies restrict their use.
Guns don't kill people, it takes people to do that. However, not all people can be trusted with weapons that make killing easier. Gun nuts tend to ignore that plain and simple fact: you need to control who has access to these weapons. Same as you control access to those who get to control that dangerous weapon: autos through licensing, keeping autos from those with a drinking problem, etc.
It's just common sense.
Art |
Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member
Username: Airbarton
Post Number: 501
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 10:05 am: | |
I notice no one is addressing the guns don't kill people comment. I guess simple logic is just to tough to deal with. I also notice that no one has come up with a good risk vs reward argument. What is the reward of outlawing guns vs the risk of losing some of our precious freedom? |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1751
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 9:52 am: | |
Arlie:
What you are forgetting about your examples are the hundreds of thousands of kids injuried because they weren't wearing helmets. One of the neat things about science and facts, is that once you put them to use, you can't use BS any more. Facts are, that once we got a good reporting system regarding accidents on bicycles, we saw that they were very unsafe if you weren't wearing a helmet. Of course many people rode them without protection, and got away with it. Same thing about seat belts, air bags, etc. Knowledge can provide you with information regarding actual risk, and when that came about, then a decision was made to make things a little safer.
I've got to tell you, if those are the best you can come up with, sure looks lame to me. I would have thought that your idea of a liberal press was a press that didn't report something significant in order to affect people's attitudes, kinda like what Fox does, when it only presents one side of the story, then claims to be fair and balanced.
Art |
Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member
Username: Maranelloman
Post Number: 1650
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 8:18 am: | |
Dave L: "your" 1000% wrong; if you believe that, and have no idea about the amendments to the COnstitution, then "your" better off in Iran.
By the way, if "your" not in the government, that you really have neither the right nor the need for free speech, or freedom from having soldiers quartered in your home. How's that sound??
Oh, but I guess "your" outraged that that suggestion, as "your" only interested in selecting which amendments "your" gonna support, eh?
 |
Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member
Username: Arlie
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 3:11 pm: | |
"How many freaking guns do you have anyway????"
That's an interesting question. If somebody owns a dozen classic cars, he's a collector. If somebody owns a dozen rental properties, he's a landlord. If somebody owns stock in dozens of companies, he's an investor. If somebody own's dozens of guns, HE'S A GUN CRAZED WACKO. QUICK, HIDE YOUR CHILDREN AND CALL THE POLICE!!!!
What a crock of double standard baloney.
(And for what it's worth, I do NOT own dozen's of guns. But there are collectors in the gun world that have HUNDREDS of guns in their collection. I'm sure that Shumer and Feinstein would be giddy as school girls if they could strip those collectors and other Americans of their Second Amendment rights and haul their guns to the scrap heap.) But unlike the bogus facts that they preach, the majority of Americans WANT their Second Amendment rights. Shumer and Feinstein and the rest of the gun haters can preach all they want, but the FACTS do NOT verify their hogwash. As of today, there are THIRTY FOUR states that have passed laws allowing concealed carry weapons permits. And probably more to come. Sure sounds like those state's legislators know what the public REALLY wants, and it is NOT the gun control garbage that the gun haters are peddling to the media.
Art asked, "Could somebody define liberal media? I thought the news people reported facts, not their opinions. I think this phrase is something thought up by those who decided to make their own version of reality, regardless of the facts."
Liberal media, by my definition, is a media that peddles its own agenda by presenting only those facts that verify THEIR agenda. A perfect example is LAWN DARTS. Remember those giant weighted darts that kids would throw through the air and try to hit a round target hoop laid out on the ground? Well, after about 30 years of selling those darts, the FTC (I believe) decided that since TWO kids had been killed with those darts, they were therefore unsafe and were pulled off the market. Of course the media reported the deaths of two kids from those evil DEADLY toys. But did the media ever do ONE report about the THOUSANDS of kids who played with those darts for 30 years WITHOUT injuring themselves. Of course not. Same thing with bicycle helmets. Every TV or movie video that depicts a kid riding a bicycle will show the kid wearing a goofy looking bicycle helmet in the interest of politically correct safety conciousness. And once again, they ignore the fact that MILLIONS of people rode bicycles for 100 years without a goofy helmet. And that MILLIONS of people in third world countries do the same thing every day. But to report the WHOLE truth would not be in keeping with the politically correct liberal media.
Their motto: report only the facts that support OUR agenda. Or if you must report SOME opposing facts, make sure they are offset by a greater percentage of the facts that support OUR agenda.
|
Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member
Username: Airbarton
Post Number: 493
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 1:20 pm: | |
Arlie, I think the opponents of your arguement don't get it! Nice try though. I completely agree with your position. I would like to point out to your opposition that guns do not kill people, people kill people. Unless I am mistaken a gun is an inanimate object which needs someone to pull the trigger for it to do harm. I also might point out that we already have laws against killing so why do we need laws against gun ownership? The murder rate in this country is not what it is because we have guns. I would hypothesize it is because of cultural, economic, or other reasons. The fact is no one needs a gun but as a decent law abiding citizen I should be able to have one if I want to. I also don't think it is wise to tinker with the Constitution like this as it runs the risk of putting all of our rights up for debate. Why not just leave well enough alone since we have nothing to gain buy outlawing guns. All we do is risk losing some of our precious freedoms! |
wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member
Username: Whart
Post Number: 1113
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 11:17 am: | |
Yeah, the problem though, is that there are no "facts," only shadings of them. The truth is difficult to grasp, at best we try for an approximation. Not that i support ambiguity, but even the most scrupulous journalists, with much research, and no real agenda, have a hard time getting it right. (Just read any article on a subject you know really well, and tell me there aren't things glossed over, confused, or worse). What happens when the writer does have an agenda? |
Dave L (Davel)
Member
Username: Davel
Post Number: 271
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 10:38 am: | |
I agree Art, the word liberal has been so overused when someone states an opinion or reports a story. Facts are facts and labeling them doesnt change it one way or another |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1737
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 10:27 am: | |
Guys:
Could somebody define liberal media? I thought the news people reported facts, not their opinions. I think this phrase is something thought up by those who decided to make their own version of reality, regardless of the facts.
Same issue on "liberal judges". The only people I've seen who make up the law, are those conservatives appointed by our former governor, Wilson, and his predecessor. Got into office on the basis that the prior court was liberal and wouldn't execute anyone. Some 15 years later, an less than 10 executions later, still getting those cases overturned (we have a very bad homicide law in this state, almost impossible to have an error free trial), but they most certainly have overturned almost all of the consumer protection we had prior to their appointment to the California Supreme Court, and they did it by ignoring logic and the laws enacted by the legislature. I can supply case names, etc. for those who need a list.
Art |
Dave L (Davel)
Member
Username: Davel
Post Number: 270
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 10:06 am: | |
If your not:
A. In the military
B. Trained by the military and still in the military
C. A SWAT/DEA/FBI/Secret Service or other unit similar in training and mission
YOU DO NOT NEED NOR HAVE THE RIGHT AS A CIVILIAN TO OWN MILITARY FIREPOWER/WEAPONS.
When you feel the need to do so, go see a recruiter and sign up. There are plenty of weapons sold at Walmart to satisfy your macho need to look good at the range with an assault weapon.
Leave military weapons to those who are trained to use them in situations where that type of firepower is needed.
As a weapons system operator I feel no need to own my current aircraft because some interpretation of a 200+ year old document may or may not give me that right. No one needs that capability unless you have been trained and equiped to do so as a professional. Now go back and take out your weapons, clean them, lock them up and teach your children that they were designed for one thing...Killing.
Then push for laws that teach, require and push for sound sensible WEAPON ownership. There is nothing that says these cannot be regulated. Sanity with our oversupply of WEAPONS might then exist. |
wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member
Username: Whart
Post Number: 1111
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 2:03 am: | |
Well, Arlie, you've certainly convinced me that this subject is not amenable to rational debate. |
Robert Callahan (Rcallahan)
Junior Member
Username: Rcallahan
Post Number: 210
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 11:54 pm: | |
Arlie,
How many freaking guns do you have anyway???? |
Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member
Username: Srt_mike
Post Number: 201
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 11:44 pm: | |
I wanted to mention to Jason that my contention that the racial diversity contributes to violence in this country cannot (IMO) be distilled to "black on white" or "white on black" crime.
How many black youths in this country are frustrated about their situation and turn to drugs or violence? They may commit violence against their own race, but that doesn't mean living in a very racially diverse area didn't contribute to the problem. I think most would agree that living in a diverse society (be it economically, racially, educationally, or whatever) contributes to increased tension and that tension contributes to violence.
As for the whole 2nd Amendment thing. I think it reads something like "A well regulated milita, being necessary to the well being of a country, the rights of the people to bear arms will not be infringed".
Now, to ME, that would translate into laymans terms as
"It's important that the people are able and capable of organizing into a defensive force as necessary, and therefore you will not interfere with their posession of weapons"
I think the intent was twofold. First, to have a "last line of defense" against potential invaders (we may laugh at this, but it was a very real concern in the 40's when the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor). The second intent was that an armed populace cannot be pushed around by the government. Look at any government that opresses the people and you will see a government that severely limits ownership of firearms.
I think the founders of the constitution knew that what they achieved came about as a result of toil and bloodshed, not negotiation. I think they were determined to prevent future generations from being neutered in terms of firepower and preserving the ability of the populace to overthrow their government if necessary.
Do we need guns? Hopefully we don't. Do we need Ferraris or even cars at all? Do we NEED homes? Do we need McDonalds? Can't we all just live on bread and water?
Most things are not protected directly by the constitution. Your right to own a firearm is much more directly protected than your *priviledge* to drive a car. Yet can you imagine what we would do if the government imposed restrictions and only allowed Geo Metros and similar machines? We'd go apeshit.
It's easy to say we don't NEED guns, and restrict various weapons and say "you still have the right to bear arms!". Now, obviously the average citizen should not be allowed to posess an ICBM, but others would say a single shot rifle of no more than .22 caliber should be "enough", and yet others would say the constitution is outdated and maybe it was OK 250 years ago, but now it's outlived it's usefulness.
Those are all very dangerous thoughts and very bad precedents. We all think we're better drivers than one another. We all think we make the best decisions, and we all have vastly different opinions about what government should do. But unless we are willing to adhere to some national standard, EVEN IF WE PERSONALLY THINK WE COULD DO BETTER OURSELVES, then we would all have chaos.
Do I NEED a handgun, or an assault rifle? Nope, but I sure as hell want to protect my RIGHT to buy one if I choose! |
Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member
Username: Arlie
Post Number: 1150
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 9:17 pm: | |
"(who really needs an assault rifle as a civilian?)"
Since when do we as Americans determine what we possess by what we really "need"? And since when is it the governments job to determine what we "need"? Does anyone really "need" a Ferrari that will travel 100 miles faster than the legal speed limit and therefore endanger the lives of others? I don't think so. And since fast cars aren't protected by any constitutional amendment, please turn in your Ferrari to the nearest government confiscation center immediately. And be sure and leave your guns, your booze, your golf clubs and your baseball bats inside the car because the government has passed a law banning all such unnecessary items because they are dangerous. You can drop the car and the dangerous items off at the confiscation center on Sunday morning because you won't be going to church anymore. The government has decided that the First Amendment is also unnecessary. Be sure and mail a thank you letter to Shumer and Feinstein first thing Monday morning. Have a nice day.
|
wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member
Username: Whart
Post Number: 1109
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 8:36 pm: | |
Guys, i'm not going to fan the flames here, but i do have a few questions for Arlie and others who are adamant about the right to bear arms, and from what i gather (correct me if i am wrong), the federal gov't's ability to regulate their availability, type,etc. When living through the eighties in NYC, every ••••••• carried, and when hyped on crack or whatever, even a vague insult triggered a deadly overreaction. The death toll here, and in other big cities, was enormous. Now, i'm not some bleeding heart liberal (if you've read other of my OT posts), but i don't really feel too comforted by the idea that any number of wackos walking down the street could be packing and just open up. Maybe the answer has nothing to do with the responsible gunowner and sportsman, but i'd love to know what your position (and that of the NRA) is on this. From everything i can tell, any regulation is regarded as the death knell to constitutional liberties, is a slippery slope, etc., such that even rational restrictions (who really needs an assault rifle as a civilian?) is anathema. Or have i been brainwashed? Dunno what the murder stats are in countries where handguns (but not hunting rifles, i assume) are heavily restricted, as in England. I know one response to all of this (can't remember who made it, but i don't think it was in jest), when discussing Columbine, was to say, yeah, but had the other students been armed, they could have taken those two kids out early on, and minimized unnecessary deaths. As to regulating our behavior, if you don't think that's happening, try lighting up a cigarette anywhere in NY. Those will eventually been made illegal (and i say this as a smoker, knowing that i would defend that right). Don't think you gun guys have alot to worry about in the current political climate, with the issue of terrorism a constant threat. But, as to constitutional arguments, i gotta tell ya, its all smoke and mirrors. When i was in law school, i read alot of Supreme Court cases closely, and noticed how that Court, liberal or conservative, managed to bootstrap case precedent to support propositions that the underlying cases never really addressed or contemplated.As to constitutional construction, i doubt you'll find solace in the same contortions the Court has used to reach the pneumbral rights upon which cases like Roe v. Wade depend. |
Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member
Username: Jaguarxj6
Post Number: 493
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 8:03 pm: | |
Interpretation or not, Americans and colonials before that have been using firearms to protect their life, liberty, and property.
2nd Amendment, the 50th Amendment, or a law passed in the People's Republic of Kalifornia, its not a sharp rake or a baseball bat we've historically kept in the corner of the door to protected your family and property. Its not a shovel we hang with pride over the fireplace. Its a big ••••••• gun.
When the government makes guns no longer necessary (reduction in crime, for STARTERS), I'll gladly side with the anti-gun faeries and we can put the debate out to pasture.
Ever see Minority Report? It isn't going to happen fellas. Take away firearms, and you might as well take away booze, tobacco, and my driver's license too. None of these are rights, yet, they're legal in our society with no amendment to back up their presence, is there? Why is that?
Sunny |
Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member
Username: Arlie
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 4:47 pm: | |
When the drugged out wacko burglar breaks into MY house, I will welcome him to my personal militia.
On the other hand, the liberals can welcome the burglar with a copy of the latest gun control regulations being posed by Shumer, Feinstein, et all.
As for "inflammatory rhetoric", I guess the truth about Waco and Ruby Ridge ruffled some feathers. Oh well, once again Jack Nicholson said it best,
"You can't handle the truth."
|
Robert Callahan (Rcallahan)
Junior Member
Username: Rcallahan
Post Number: 209
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 4:08 pm: | |
Arlie,
I think everybody would agree that you have the right to bear arms if you are "a well regulated militia"
Are you?? |
Jason Wesoky (Wesokyjb)
Junior Member
Username: Wesokyjb
Post Number: 111
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 3:56 pm: | |
You're right, Arlie, I spent all 18 hrs. researching my post. I don't have a job and I don't sleep.
I've now grown tired of your inflammatory rhetoric. |
Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member
Username: Arlie
Post Number: 1148
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 3:44 pm: | |
"Yes, the liberal media has clearly brainwashed the enitre country."
And the liberal media STILL hasn't got the message that the majority of America does NOT want what they are peddling.
Same thing with the gun haters. They routinely try to cram their agenda down the throats of America, and we continuously throw it back up at them. When will they learn.
Jason, you may "implore" everybody to read historical documents, but the general slant of your post is that you don't want the Second Amendment to exist. If that's the case, I will ask again, why has it taken 200 years for the liberal media to get around to debating this great issue as to the Second Amendment's validity?
It was valid for over 200 years with very little questioning. But for some reason, (the liberal agenda) people now attack the Second Amendment on a daily basis. I will ask again: Why don't you attack the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment?
By the way Jason, I note that it only took you over EIGHTEEN HOURS to research and respond to my posting concerning the Federalist Papers. I wonder if you would devote an equal amount of time attempting to disprove our Freedom of Speech rights or our Freedom of Religion? Sounds like you have an agenda.
"when the US Army comes bearing down on your rights with the tyranny of the US Government at its back"
Helloooooo! Ever heard of Waco or Ruby Ridge???
Of course the "government" didn't do ANYTHING wrong in those two landmark instances did they? I guess it is just pure coincidence that the FBI changed some of its policies after both incidents. Wonder what ever happened to that FBI supervisor who took it upon himself to have his snipers "shoot to kill" that guy's wife, son, and his dog at Ruby Ridge? Is that FBI supervisor's wrist still stinging from the severe wrist slapping that his bosses gave him for killing those people with FBI sniper rifles? How about the sniper himself? Didn't he bother to think twice about shooting those people? The wife was shot as she ran back into the doorway of a cabin. The kid was shot as he raised his rifle toward the agents after they killed his dog.
(Note that the gun hating liberals don't talk too much about Ruby Ridge. But let one wacko shoot a few people in a schoolyard and they immediately start pounding their gun control drum.) Kinda difficult for the FBI and the government to justify their actions when the bodies of innocent civilians are piled up in front of the news cameras. (Oh, I've forgotten that the FBI kept the media so far away that they could never ACTUALLY get any pictures of the dead bodies. Good PR move on their part.) But when two CIVILIAN wackos shot up Columbine High School they had no problems with the news media seeing THOSE bodies, did they? As a matter of fact, didn't the FBI release the survellience camera video from INSIDE Columbine High during the attack? Where's all the video from Ruby Ridge and/or Waco? (Now don't tell me that they DIDN'T have any video survellience at those incidents.)
Once again, it was another opportunity for the liberal media to cast a bad light on civilian gun ownership. And they never miss an opportunity to do that.
|
Jason Wesoky (Wesokyjb)
Junior Member
Username: Wesokyjb
Post Number: 110
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 2:28 pm: | |
Art, I must clarify my statement, as Congress has the right to limit where speech takes place but not eliminate the speech itself.
Arlie, as for the liberal media issue, they have done such a good job of promoting a liberal agenda that the Congress is Republican, there's a Republican in the White House, the majority of the Supreme Court leans to the right, Rush Limbagh is the second most highly rated radio show in the nation, voucher systems are in place in many states, several states have passed laws that limit the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman, and, as for the notion that clips from primetime would horrify the average congregation, the congregation is made up of the same people that give the shows their high ratings and the movies their enormous box office returns. Yes, the liberal media has clearly brainwashed the enitre country.
As for the Federalist Papers, they are a far cry from the basis and foundation of the Constitution. They are an important tool in understanding the context of the constiution, but not the final authority. As for the Federalist Papers speaking of the militia, the quote Arlie cites is not from the Federalist Papers, but from Tench Coxe in February 1788.
He is quoted throught law review articles sponsored by the NRA, or its lesser known wing called the Independence Institute. Tench supported the constitution, but was not present during the debates and had no role in the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention. Moreover, he was the only supporter of the Constitution who focused so intently on a single issue, but this was not without reason.
Coxe was a Royalist sympathizer and played an analagous role to Joe Kennedy during prohibition by making money in a shady trade business while supporting the very law/regime that he was circumventing. Most notably, his trading buisness dealt very heavily in the importation and sale of firearms, so much so that his company became one of the foremost gun distributors in the country.
As for the Federalist Papers commentary regarding the militia, it is hardly favorable and does not, IMO, lend itself to an interpretation of an individual right to use/own a gun when acting in any capacity outside of a formal militia.
Hamilton, it seems, was against arming the entire populace to create a militia: "were the Constitution ratified and were I to deliver my sentiments ... on the subject of a militia establishment, I should [say], "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious ... To oblige the ... citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be .. a serious public inconvenience and loss. ... To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; ... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; ... The attention of the government ought ... to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. ... if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army ... that army can never be formidable ... while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in ... the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights." -- Hamilton No. 29.
Thus, the Federalist Papers themselves describe what the militia should be. Some say Hamilton's description is what the National Guard is today. I don't know about that, but I do know that the militia Hamilton spoke of is not what the NRA's revisionist history says it is, i.e. all of the people.
Arlie, are you trained regularly by the state government so that when the US Army comes bearing down on your rights with the tyranny of the US Government at its back you can say that you are equally trained in the use of arms? If so, then you are the militia Hamilton envisioned and your state is adhering to the Constitution. If not, you have no right to the guns you so proudly display.
This debate will go on and on, thankfully, because the meaning of the Second Amendement is not as clear as the the NRA and its deciples would have the world think. Again, I implore all of you to read historical documents in their raw form, not as the NRA or Handguns, Inc. (a pro-gun-control lobby group) sees them. |
Robert Callahan (Rcallahan)
Junior Member
Username: Rcallahan
Post Number: 205
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 11:04 pm: | |
Arlie,
I do understand your arguement. But as I understand the Federalist Papers they seem to be a series of "letters to the editor" of the various newspapers of the day to convince the people to ratify the proposed constitution. they were writen by 2 or 3 people that were at the Constitutional Convention. They were not speaking for ALL of the framers.
Can you tell me, if the militia meant the people, than how are they supposed to be "well regulated"?
Bob |
Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member
Username: Arlie
Post Number: 1145
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 8:48 pm: | |
Robert, as with all laws you have to examine the "intent" versus the "letter" of the law. Your question is a common one. The founding fathers themselves asked the same question in the Federalist Papers which preceded the Constitution. I believe it was Mason (one of the framers of the Constitution) who asked and answered the question with his words, "Who are the militia, they are the people". I don't have my reference material in front of me or I would have the exact quote. So the "militia" is composed of the "people". So you don't have to be a member of the National Guard or some other quasi-official military group to be allowed to own a firearm as all the gun haters would have people believe. The founding fathers total "intent" was to allow each citizen to own firearms. The historical revisionists, (liberals), would have you believe otherwise.
So to review: The Second Amendment protects a "militia's" right to bear arms. And the founding fathers defined a "militia" as being composed of the "people". So the "people" have the right to bear arms.
The Federalist Papers provide the entire background regarding the intent and reasoning that the Constitutional forefathers used when establishing the Second Amendment. The gun haters conveniently ignore all that because they wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of their gun control agenda.
And by the way, in the world of the gun hating liberal, the Second Amendment doesn't mention hunting rifles either, and since a militia is for military defense and not for sport or food hunting, please turn in your hunting rifle to the local Gun Hating Liberal Collection Depot. THEY have determined that your hunting rifle is illegal.
|
Robert Callahan (Rcallahan)
Junior Member
Username: Rcallahan
Post Number: 204
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 7:20 pm: | |
Arlie,
Almost all of your posts espouse your thoughts on the "right to bear arms".
Unless your a "well regulated militia" (and you may well be) please show me via the Constitution how you can have any ARMs?
Bob |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1713
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 6:33 pm: | |
Jason:
Congress does not have the right to limit free speech. Congress has the right to keep people from taking action, and in some very, very limited areas, that involves limiting speech which urges people to act against the law.
Art |
Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member
Username: Arlie
Post Number: 1143
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 5:44 pm: | |
"Additionally, while it may have been true 30 years ago that the media was as liberal as you think, it is not so today."
We disagree 100% on that statement. If I were to record ONE night of any network's television programming and then edit some of the jokes, statements, plot lines, etc., and play them on Sunday morning to the congregation of any church service, the audience would be swooning at some of the filth and garbage that the liberal media helps proliferate. Of course, under the First Amendment right of free speech, such programs are perfectly acceptable and allowable. Why don't they take that same approach to the Second Amendment??? But of course, they do not. The liberals take every possible channce to carve and whittle away at the Second Amendment ANY chance they can. WHY? Because they have an agenda and an objective which is the eventually attempt to eliminate private firearms ownership in America? And why do they want to do that? So THEY can promote THEIR idea of a better community, better country, better world, or better whatever. They consider themselves elite and above the unwashed masses. This is exactly the kind of thinking that led to Hitler's ascent to power. In every attempt at CONTROL by a political party, the ELIMINATION of the citizens firearms and their ability to defend themselves always holds priority.
The main question is this: Why does any American citizen remain so concerned about another citizen's right to own a firearm? The "concerned" citizen is not required by law to own a firearm themselves. So why so much "concern" during the past 10 or 15 years concerning Second Amendment rights? What is so inherently "bothersome" about the Second Amendment that the liberal left will constantly attempt to destroy American's rights to bear arms? Could it be that, just like in dictatorships of the past throughout the world, that the Second Amendment is standing in the way of the liberal "agenda"? Well, that's EXACTLY why the founding forefathers put it there in the first place.
|
Jason Wesoky (Wesokyjb)
Junior Member
Username: Wesokyjb
Post Number: 108
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 5:03 pm: | |
arlie, a few issues under a few amendments that are up for debate:
1st Amend. - what constitutes speech? this issue is particularly poignant with regard to McCain-Feingold; what constitutes the establishment of a religion? this issue fits in several current issues such as voucher programs, prayer in schools and whether the pledge of allegiance (which was changed during McCarthyism to inovke god) violates the first amendment.
Fourth Amendment - what is an unreasonable search? this issue is currently debated in light of the Patriot Act.
Fifth Amendment - what is necessary to ensure due process? this issue is also being debated in light of the Patriot Act with regard to citizens, those being held in Cuba (whether they are entitled to due process) and deportation hearings (whether not having your attorney present is a violation of due process).
Not to mention that the meaning of the vast majority of the constituion is debated endlessly on a daily basis in our Congress and our courts.
From a broader perspective, while everyone agrees there is a right to free speech, it is certainly within the right of Congress to limit that right. By analogy, then, the Second Amendment, assuming it does establish a right to own a gun, the question is to what extent can Congress limit that right?
As for information from the NRA, I think (FWIW)the NRA has a much clearer bias than any news program on any gun control issue. Additionally, while it may have been true 30 years ago that the media was as liberal as you think, it is not so today. Every major network is owned by companies that donate millions more to Reps. than Dems. Ultimately, these companies control the content on their networks. Moreover, Fox is owned by one of the most powerful (money-wise) Republicans in the nation. Also, of the five 2hr+ nationally syndicated morning talk shows, one is not a major Republican voice: Howard Stern. While we could sit here all day and debate the slant of the media, it is not nearly as slanted in either direction as the NRA is to the right. |
Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member
Username: Maranelloman
Post Number: 1637
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 3:44 pm: | |
Thanks, Art. Likewise!
 |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1709
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 3:36 pm: | |
Jason:
I don't know about some of the other, but Dave is usually well reasoned and thoughful (wrong some of the time, but still well reasoned and thoughtful).
Art |
Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member
Username: Maranelloman
Post Number: 1635
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 3:34 pm: | |
Arlie, once again, you & I are in 100% agreement. |
Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member
Username: Arlie
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 3:30 pm: | |
"do some research that isn't filtered through the NRA."
Why shouldn't someone use research that comes from the NRA? Wouldn't NRA research just help to equalize the left wing liberalized slant that every national news media propagates every day of the week?
Nobody ever attempts to answer my repetitive question: Why is the Second Amendment Right a matter of debate? No other amendment in the Bill of Rights is up for "debate". The amendments to the Bill of Rights are your RIGHTS. They are NOT subject to debate. But for some strange reason, (liberalism, political correctness, communistic thinking, etc.), people want to "debate" an American's right to bear arms. It's not up to debate. It's your RIGHT. PERIOD! If you don't like that, may I suggest that you move to another country with a constitution more to your liking? The American Constitution and the Bill of Rights suits me just fine.
|
Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member
Username: Maranelloman
Post Number: 1633
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 3:28 pm: | |
Oh, Jason. There you go again... |
Jason Wesoky (Wesokyjb)
Junior Member
Username: Wesokyjb
Post Number: 107
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 3:20 pm: | |
a few minor points:
"how about the fact that the USA is one of the most racially diverse countries in the world. I wonder what the numbers would look like if you removed the racial element from the USA's numbers." the racial diversity of america has nothing to do with gun violence as the overwhelming majority of gun violence is black-on-black or white-on-white or whatever-on-whatever.
terry does not speak for americans. i am an american and i completely diagree with the comment that guns=freedom and freedom=guns. call me crazy, but i think the founding fathers weren't basing the text of the constitution or their philosophy of freedom and liberty on a 20lb musket.
why are those who are so convinced that there is an absolute right to own a gun so angry. all of your posts are filled with hateful rhetoric and spiteful language. i may not agree with everything Jonas, Mike B and Art say, but their posts are calm and devoid of angry rhetoric and personal attacks. if you want to get your point accross, the best means is reasoned, logical arguments that leave the b.s. behind.
art's point on the liability issue is that, as the bill reads in Congress right now, it would be nearly impossible to hold gun manufacturer's liable under products liability theory. translated, that means if you're at the firing range with a legal gun and are using it the right way taking all precautions, but the thing explodes in your hands because the metal had a flaw or the hammer didn't work right, or whatever, the manufacturer cannnot be held liable. imagine if that were the case for ford during the pinto litigation. ford would not be forced to change the design and the cars we drive today would not be nearly as safe.
finally, several people have batted around the point that different states/regions have different thoughts on gun control and that what californians think is o.k. shouldn't have any bearing on what ohioans think is o.k. i think the politician with the most rational approach to this problem is Howard Dean. He leaves gun control up to the states for this very reason. before you dismiss him with uneducated and inflamatory rhetoric (i.e. he's a socialist/communist/lefty/liberal/hack/whatever), do some research that isn't filtered through the NRA. |
Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member
Username: Maranelloman
Post Number: 1612
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 8:47 pm: | |
Uh, lessee. How about anyone on this board with an Enzo. Or a GT-40! |
Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Member
Username: Hugh
Post Number: 831
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 8:46 pm: | |
Art- You and Dave tell me when and where, and I'm there. I'm planning on hitting Big Sur this August, and Monterey for the ALMS event and the historics. |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1682
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 8:43 pm: | |
Dave:
thanks. Who's buying the 1st round in Big Sur next year?
Art |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page