Here we go again

[jwham]

It is amazing to me how so many people pay lip service to the Constitution, yet set out to twist and distort it when it stands in the way of things they think ought to be done or laws they believe ought to be passed. It is also amazing to me how often our courts do the same thing.

The Second Amendment is clear, or ought to be. It appears to leave little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate. It reads: "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."

There is little doubt that the founding fathers thought they should have this right, and for a very specific reason: They distrusted government. All of the first 10 amendments make that clear. Each of them specifies an area where government cannot impose itself on the individual or where the individual must be protected from government.

The second amendment gives the individual citizen a means of protection against the despotism of the state. Look what it refers to: "The security of a free state." The word "free" should be underlined because that is what they are talking about and that is what the Constitution is about--a free nation and a free people, where the rights of the individual are pre-eminent. The founding fathers had seen, as the Declaration of Independence tells us, what a despotic government can do to its own people. Indeed, every American should read the Declaration of Independence before he reads the Constitution, and he will see that the Constitution aims at preventing a recurrence of the way George III's government treated the colonies.

The declaration states this plainly: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new Guards for their future security."

There is no question that the first 10 amendments are a part of those "new guards" for their future security. And one of the most basic of those guards is the right to keep and bear arms.

The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all.

I am not ready to take that risk. I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.

***

Now there will be those that read this and say, These are not Reagan's Republicans who believe this, but they are the words of Ronald Reagan himself. I have always admired Reagan for the man he was and the leader he was, America needs another Ronaldus Magnus.

This link will give you a more in depth look at what Ronald Reagan believed concerning crime and the use of the gun.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ner-s-Champion

[Lil-Mac]

Jwham, on the whole I agree with what you say, especially concerning the history and reasons behind the 2nd amendment. I wonder however what would happen if the 2nd amendment were taken literally, as it was nearly 200 years ago when it was written. The amendment says "The right to keep and bear arms". Does that mean any arms?

If a man can afford to own a .50 caliber machiene gun, should he be allowed to? What about hand grenades, plastic explosives? If I am a multimillionaire should I be allowed to own a tank, or a fighter jet?

Any reasonable person would say of course not, it isnt ok to own these types of weapons. I have to disagree with those who argue that there should be no limits on the 2nd amendment. When this law was enacted back in the 18th century the people had the ability to very nearly match the government in raw firepower. They could perhaps even surpass the government. Swords were still in use, single shot pistols and muskets, smooth bore cannon... those were the armament of the day and it was these types of arms of which the founders spoke.

The Constitution is a living, breathing document. It cannot be held static, forever bound in unyeilding chain. Like all things in life it must be read and understood with the eyes of the age in which we find ourselves, not those of a bygone era. Our history is important, it grounds us, it tells us who we are and from where we came. I teach it, I love it, but I do not believe our lives should be controlled by it.

And to Justmetoo, yes the oversized, high capacity magz were in fact covered under the assualt gun ban. They have only been legal since 2004.

[justmetoo]

Originally Posted by jwham

I am not ready to take that risk. I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.

I'm going to just focus on this one statement as I think this is the sticking point that you might have had with my comments. I think my well stocked gun cabinet puts me firmly in a position of being an advocate of private ownership of firearms. Having said that, I also believe that not every person should be allowed to own weapons. Convicted felons certainly come to mind as well as people that have shown a history of violence against others.

Do you believe these people should be allowed to own guns? If so, is there a point that someone should not be allowed to own guns? And if that is the case, aren't we infringing on their right to bear arms?

What about people that are mentally incompetent? They have been judged by the courts to not be capable of handling their own matters. Do we allow them to own guns?

I'm sorry, but some line has to be drawn in my opinion. I'm sorry if that in your eyes that makes me a gun control advocate. I sure don't see myself as being one. But I also know that common sense has to be applied as to who can and cannot legally own firearms.

[jwham]

I want to start off by saying that I respect all the opinions given in this thread, even those of, Menace, it has been a interesting debate, with valid points brought up on both sides of this issue.

Lil-Mac, I have no problem with the current gun law restrictions, and they should be strictly enforced by our Government, but they are not, certainly not against the criminals in our society. I also have no issue per say with the banning of fully automatic fire arms. But any restrictive laws that are enacted by our Government needs to be strictly enforced upon the criminals as well, meaning long prison terms for gang members or hate groups found in possession of automatic weaponry. But unfortunately our courts are filled with bleeding heart judges that are soft on crime.

Firearm freedom is threatened often when major incidents, like the one in Arizona occur. Congress is just this week, looking into several changes. One idea is to outlaw high-capacity ammunition magazines, like the one Arizona shooter Jared Loughner used, which is the one you speak of Lil-Mac. A lot of times you will see where they start to restrict or the legislature will start a bill to restrict, and gun shop owners will tell you when it looks like gun rights will be restricted, they see more business. When President Obama come into office people went crazy. They were buying everything they could get their hands on. It caused shortages.

Some of Jared Loughner's college class mates contacted officials at their college wanting his mental stability checked out, one girl said she feared him so much that she sat in the back of her class by the door so she could get out of the classroom quickly if he should snap. But the college officials said they could do nothing until he did something. The armed services rejected Loughner when he tried to enlist. So there were many warning signs far in advance of the Tucson shooting that if acted upon by the powers that be, would have made it much more difficult for Loughner to carryout his killing spree.

I think Ronald Reagan was a President of wisdom, vision, and foresight, and his fear about tampering with the "Second amendment" was, as he said, ..."If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all. I am not ready to take that risk. I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." ... Justmetoo, the statement that you are focusing on was that of Ronald Reagan, not mine. My whole last post was what President Reagan said about gun control and crime.

But Reagan's fear was not unfounded, for instance. Obama has shown particular disdain for and has challenged with legislation the First, Second, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Particularly is the feds' health care violation of the 10th Amendment, which is part of our Bill of Rights and was ratified Dec. 15, 1791. The amendment says, ..."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ... Medicare is going bankrupt. Medicaid is going bankrupt. What rational board anywhere in the world would rightly appoint a CEO who had a string of miserable business failures and major corporate bankruptcies in his record?

law enforcement officers give an oath to swear to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Our elected leaders should be bound by this same oath to defend the whole Constitution, not just the portions they agree with.


The following is a list of persons who are ineligible to own firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968, but these persons go largely unchecked by our Government, the only people that seem to be affected by gun restrictions are those citizens that follow the letter of the law.

Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors

Fugitives from justice.

Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.

Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.

Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S.

Illegal Aliens.

Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship.

Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.

Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.

Persons subject to a restraining order.

Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Those who already own firearms would normally be required to relinquish them upon conviction.

[menace]

Originally Posted by jwham

Every insurrection uses the weaponry at hand, and as President Obama said, "You don't take a knife to a gun fight"



He had a catchy slogan, and great writers of his speeches that swayed the undereducated masses and he had lots and lots of money to buy the election, plus the mainstream media helped him by not reporting anything negative, unless it was about McCain or Palin. Among Democrats, 85 percent approve, while 84 percent of Republicans disapprove, along with 46 percent of independent voters.

But actually I think President Obama is starting to show great promise now that he is starting to lean towards the center and bailing out on his far left socialist buddies. He now realizes that the majority of Americans do not lean to the far left or the extreme right, but rather right down the center. The President said he's “willing to work with anyone of either party who’s got a good idea and the commitment to see it through.” and when he signed an $858 billion bill extending for two years the Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels he shown that he meant what he said, much to the dislike of the far left socialist.

I think Obama is an intelligent, articulate man that has the ability to be a good leader as long as he continues to turn his back on the far left socialist in his party, (which in reality is only 20% of the democratic party) and continues to listen to the American people.



Or perhaps it just went over your head.



South Africa's Apartheid was a system of legal racial segregation enforced by the National Party government, under which the rights of the majority none-white inhabitants were curtailed, and minority rule by white people was maintained, this will happen when good people are afraid to act and do nothing.



America gained Independence in 1783. so technically 228 years. 400 years ago the year would have been 1611, In 1611, a mutiny during an attempt to find the Northwest Passage left Henry Hudson adrift on what is now Hudson Bay, never to be heard from again.

And thus we have gone off topic.

While this too would make an interesting debate, it will need a different thread.

[menace]

Jwham, do you believe that cutting hands off thieves and stoning people to death for adultery is justifiable?

[jwham]

Originally Posted by menace

Lets look at things from the beginning. Why was the Second Amendment enacted? So that white people can shoot the Indians. Then so that white people could shoot black people. Now the Mexicans are the problem.

Think about what happens when an armed criminal breaks into a house. If he encounters an unarmed tenant, he has to choose between 10 years in prison and a life in prison. And when he encounters an armed tenant, the criminal has to choose between killing or being killed.
Oh, but it's really not the problem in him being a criminal, since we know that 'criminal' is just a code word for a n*****.

Originally Posted by menace

And where did you get that I'm defending criminals? If it's because I'm anti-racist..

But I will say that an armed criminal scares me much less than a law abiding citizen with a gun.

Menace, would you place a weapon in the hands of criminals while at the same time disarming law abiding citizens? Or would you just disarm the white people?

[menace]

I would disarm all private citizen who cannot prove they are responsible enough to be entrusted with such power.

Now, you do mine.

[jwham]

Originally Posted by menace

Jwham, do you believe that cutting hands off thieves and stoning people to death for adultery is justifiable?

I do not believe we should cut the hands or the feet off of thieves, that would make it impossible for them to clean up the trash alongside the highways and byways when I'd stick their ass on a chain gang.

I do not see adultery as a crime, or any of Big Brothers business, it is a case of bad manners towards ones spouse.

[justmetoo]

Originally Posted by menace

I would disarm all private citizen who cannot prove they are responsible enough to be entrusted with such power.

Now we are down to the nitty-gritty. How does a government agency decide who and who is not responsible to bear arms? How would one prove themselves to be responsible? What criteria would be used to show someone was not responsible?

[jwham]

Originally Posted by mat2001uk

Full and detailed psychological reports should be mandatory for anyone wishing to own (or already owning) a firearm I think, and have thought for a number of years.

Originally Posted by mat2001uk

If you want a gun, you should have to prove you're mentally fit. Not after the fact, not with assurances from someone else, but right then right there. The only way to do that is to sit infront of a trained psychologist and talk about why you want the gun.

Psych majors are at the heart of much that is wrong with young adults today. Psychology programs are big money makers for colleges, as they are cheap to produce and can attract idealistic, elitist, middle-class high school graduates who come to University knowing nothing of the real world or what they want to do.

They are drawn into taking huge intro psychology classes, where they learn that through minimal work, they are able to obtain the easiest 'A' in their lives. They study theories such as behaviorism, social learning THEORY, and Freudian psychoanalysis. This leads to a feeling of superiority over their fellow students who weren't afraid of taking math classes.

The day after Graduation is a sad day for many of these people. Suddenly, they are shocked at how job interviewers are not impressed by their behaviorism, social learning theory, and Freudian psychoanalysis. and that these four or five years of learning have taught them nothing about the real world.

Originally Posted by mat2001uk

This thread has been sidetracked by the whole racism / constitution debate, which frankly will happen to any and all threads about guns and America.

In America (and that is the Country we are talking about) you can't talk about the right to own a gun without talking about the Constitution. That would be like having a thread talking about hamburgers and saying the thread was sidetracked by talking about the bun.

[Lil-Mac]

Originally Posted by mat2001uk

Sit them infront of a Clinical Psychologist for an hour.

This actually isnt a bad idea. While gun ownership is a right we enjoy in the US, it is a right that carries with it enormous responcibility, and honestly, some folks just cant hack it.

I am in favor of gun owership, I support the 2nd amendment tho I believe there needs to be limits placed on who can own guns, and what types of guns, AND their accessories are available.

And I definately want to keep guns out of the hands of crazies as much as is humanly possible.

[menace]

Originally Posted by jwham

I do not believe we should cut the hands or the feet off of thieves, that would make it impossible for them to clean up the trash alongside the highways and byways when I'd stick their ass on a chain gang.

I do not see adultery as a crime, or any of Big Brothers business, it is a case of bad manners towards ones spouse.

So you think this laws, enacted in the muslim countries, is up to par with modern times?

[jwham]

Originally Posted by Crotch_Ripper

Let me pose a question to all you gun banning left wingers out there. What if he got in his pickup truck and plowed down 20 people killing 6. When do we ban the cars?

You see if you think Guns are the problem your not thinking deep enough about the situation.

Why do we as a society not give people a psych exam and even a physical exam before we give them the license to drive a huge hunk of high speed metal around. I mean there are kids walking around out there, and after all driving a car is a privilege not a Constitutional right.

Motor Vehicle Deaths vs Firearms in the United States As compiled from data reported by the National Vital Statistics Report.

Motor Vehicle Accidents - 43,354

Firearms - 28,663

Originally Posted by mat2001uk

I don't think you'll ever take guns out of America. For better or worse, that's just how it is. I do wonder why you would need something that can fire off 30 shots in a matter of seconds for 'home protection' though.

I don't think tighter gun laws are the answer (although why some weapons like this aren't banned outright is beyond me), and sure setting up psychological evaluations for every current or potential gun owner would be hideously expensive, but this particular law doesn't sound fit for purpose. I suppose it all comes down to the price a government thinks an individuals life is worth.

I don't disagree. It is a shame but life is cheap in this world we live in, not just the USA.

Originally Posted by FuckingRotter

Just a thought, the USA is a nation of hundreds of millions, with a virtual civil war being held by gangsters to the south and a vast ungovernable border to the north. You could out law guns but that will only encourage more people to smuggle them. Where did booze come from during prohibition? Where did refusniks go to during Vietnam?

All gun control will achieve is to criminalise gun owners, that is all.

I agree with this post 100%

Originally Posted by mat2001uk

Incidentally, even with our 'draconian' laws, if I really wanted a gun (and had about £1,000 spare) I could probably 'acquire' one today. I don't know a lot of unsavoury people, but I know enough.

And you would be able to do so without seeing a Clinical Psycholgist first.

Originally Posted by Lil-Mac

I am in favor of gun owership, I support the 2nd amendment tho I believe there needs to be limits placed on who can own guns, and what types of guns, AND their accessories are available.

And I definately want to keep guns out of the hands of crazies as much as is humanly possible.

I agree that there should be some restrictions on the amount of fire power a citizen should be allowed to lawfully own, and the law already denies gun ownership to the mentally impaired.

Originally Posted by jwham

The following is a list of persons who are ineligible to own firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968...

Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors

Fugitives from justice.

Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.

Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.

Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S.

Illegal Aliens.

Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship.

Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.

Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.

Persons subject to a restraining order.

Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Those who already own firearms would normally be required to relinquish them upon conviction.

***

Life is a dangerous business, we humans face dangers every day all our lives from the cradle to whenever we meet our end. Do you realize that more than 3.5 million children ages 14 and under get hurt annually playing sports or participating in recreational activities. Sports and recreational activities contribute to approximately 21 percent of all traumatic brain injuries among American children, and the leading cause of death from a sports-related injury is a brain injury. Do we banned all sports and recreational activities for the sake of our youth? I mean those are staggering annually statistics that we as adults are responsible for putting our children through.

[Lil-Mac]

Originally Posted by jwham

I agree that there should be some restrictions on the amount of fire power a citizen should be allowed to lawfully own, and the law already denies gun ownership to the mentally impaired.

I agree, but a law that isnt enforced or enforceable isnt worth the paper it is written on. So lets say just for the sake of this discussion... that I am carzy as a loon but dont really show it all the time. I walk into a gun shop to buy a gun, fill out the paper work and presto-chango I am now a proud gun owner.

I then proceed to go to a supermarket parking lot, shoot 20 people, killing six.

How exactly did the law protect the public from me? At what point was there a roadblock to my getting hold of a firearm?

Was the store clerk, with no medical or mental health training, supposed to know that I am a fruitloop? Was he the one that was supposed to protect the public? I dont think so.

I see nothing wrong with requiring a person that wants to own a firearm with having to pass a basic psyche eval.

[jwham]

Originally Posted by Lil-Mac

I see nothing wrong with requiring a person that wants to own a firearm with having to pass a basic psyche eval.

Lil-Mac, your heart is in the right place. I know you are not out to deny Americans their Constitutional 2ed amendment rights. But in my opinion it is a slippery slop you're walking on, once you allow psychological evaluations on people that have shown no past history of mental illness to own a gun, (and by the time they are old enough to purchase a gun, if they have a mental illness someone does know, they knew with Jared Loughner, they just failed to act) why not allow a psychological evaluation to drive a car, etc? Once you have opened Pandora's box the misuse of such a law would be endless.

[jwham]

Originally Posted by mat2001uk

I can appreciate why you feel psychologicaly evaluating people before they are allowed to own a gun is the start of a slippery slope towards the state controlling you even more, and in part I do agree with you.

But owning a gun is not like owning a TV. If I get pissed off at life and own a TV, I can throw my TV at you and at least kill one of you (probably not even that anymore - damn flatscreens). If I own even a revolver I can potentially kill a lot more.

As I have already stated, by the time a person goes through their school years, if they have mental issues the school system knows about it. That is the time to have them psychological evaluated, to go beyond that and have every person in society who wants to purchase a gun, or who already owns a gun, to undergo evaluations is just living their lives in fear, and as Benjamin Franklin said....

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"