The Supreme Court and Gun Control

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

Taking guns away from citizens wont stop the criminals from obtaining them. There is always a way. More crime would happen because criminals would know the average guy wont have a gun at home. More break ins would happen while families are at home Lets not forget that drinking was at an high during prohibition and who do you know that cant obtain marijuana and how many people die in cental and south america from the drug lords.

it actually WILL cut down access to the guns, because their easy accessablity will be removed.

and we're not talking about Central and South America...though I feel for them....thats a separate issue.

[candyman]

Whens the last time you seen a car-jacking with an AK-47 or an Uzi?

Now, how about a stick-up with a normal, everyday pistol like over half of America keeps in their houses?

I rest my case.

So you have seen car-jackings with pistols? Did you recognize the pistol as something that is commonly owned by "over half" of Americans? What exactly is a normal, everyday pistol? I mean to you that could be a Bauer 25 but to me that could be a Taurus Judge.

Out of all the gun-owners I know, which includes many people, only about 25% of them have pistols...and most of those people have then loaded and WELL hidden. And since you are making so many claims here just where the FUCK did you get these numbers? PROOF! No I have not seen a car-jacking AT ALL but I never claimed that I saw a car-jacking with any of those weapons OR that a car-jacking would ever happen with those weapons.

Wow...way to go on the EXTREME there and take what I said WAY OUT of context...you are just looking for a fight aren't you? Stereotyping the people that own firearms, making wild claims with NO PROOF, and telling others not to treat you the way that you are treating them.

Serious question here...do you even know what a gun is or did you just go nuts on conspiracy packed youtube videos?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Wow...way to go on the EXTREME there and take what I said WAY OUT of context...looks like you fit right in with the rest of the Tea Party nutcases, Spin Doctor Gaf.

First off, just because it was put in the Constitution 200+ years ago does not mean that it should BE part of our "rights" anymore, especially when it's a right that causes more harm then good. Should we tally up the amount of adolescent accidental deaths and child-vs-child murders that involved them having access to guns? How about the number of young adults that wanted to know what shooting someone felt like in the past, say...15 years? How about we bring up Columbine, the Branch Davidians, or any other number of incidences that the "right to bear arms" helped with? Oh...and before you decide to tell me that they played no part in those occurances, had those people not had such easy access to guns, because of the right to bear arms, it's more then highly probably that they never would have happened.

Secondly, they NEVER said that we had the right to bear arms against the goverment. Where your getting that from, one can only wonder, but I can gurantee that it's not from the Constitution.

Lets take a look at the line in the Constitution.

"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." Here is the exact line. It is plain to anyone that they are talking about the right to keep and bear arms, in the form of a MILITIA, shall not be infringed. It does not say "the right of every swinging dick to carry a .22 shotgun and a Berreta because he feels like it."

Now, lets look up Militia, in terms of what our forefathers for the past 100+ years seen it as.

"An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces." OMG...a RESERVE ARMY??? You mean to say that we already HAVE these in place (Army Reserve & National Guard) and therefore don't need that group of 100+ redneck hunters as a wanna-be Militia in the backwoods, drinking moonshine and eating squirrel, to protect us? Holy Shit on a Stick, Batman.

If your going to say your defending the Constitution, at least KNOW wtf it says, because if you don't, you'll end up looking less like Gaf The Horse with Tears and more like Gaf The Ass who cried Wolf.

I suggest you read the Federalist papers, the writings of Ben Franklin, the writings of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Joseph Story is another good read when it comes to the Constitution.

Just keep bashing on the Constitution, someone may give you name to Homeland Security.

[candyman]

Lets take a look at the line in the Constitution.

"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." Here is the exact line. It is plain to anyone that they are talking about the right to keep and bear arms, in the form of a MILITIA, shall not be infringed. It does not say "the right of every swinging dick to carry a .22 shotgun and a Berreta because he feels like it."

Now, lets look up Militia, in terms of what our forefathers for the past 100+ years seen it as.

"An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces." OMG...a RESERVE ARMY??? You mean to say that we already HAVE these in place (Army Reserve & National Guard) and therefore don't need that group of 100+ redneck hunters as a wanna-be Militia in the backwoods, drinking moonshine and eating squirrel, to protect us? Holy Shit on a Stick, Batman.

Ummm...if we are going to be picky here then you are still wrong. A citizen soldier would mean that the person would have to be a CITIZEN in the first place. Even in the Reserve and National Guard you are a part of the Army, they employ you can do have the power to pull you into whatever duty they may need you in. You cannot have a Militia that is made up of enlisted soldiers...that is not what a militia is.

No I guess hunting is not a good reason to own guns at all...someone could steal my clunky bolt action rifles and use them to slowly mow down a crowd of people that isn't moving very fast...that is if they could find the bolt which is hidden.

In an age where the markets are packed with overpriced crap food you probably shouldn't fuck with the people that can actually find, kill, and prepare their own damn food. There is nothing wrong with moonshine and you don't eat the whole squirrel you just get the fat ones and roast the stomach...give the rest to the dogs. And if the shit really does hit the fan which it probably won't the answer is not...they are not there to protect you...you can cover your own ass as far as they are concerned.

Now I am off to find the mysterious .22 shotgun...and a Beretta that doesn't function like a Beretta so I can actually shoot the targets.

[torn asunder]

i know this can be a passionate topic, but let's try to keep it respectful, ok? there's no reason to be implying or directly name-calling when discussing this, so try to make your points like a civilized person.

[Nightgaunt]

Wow...way to go on the EXTREME there and take what I said WAY OUT of context...looks like you fit right in with the rest of the Tea Party nutcases, Spin Doctor Gaf.

Now, even I, having taken issue with the Tea Party's seeming-takeover by the Neo-Cons, take issue with this statement. The Tea Party started as a grass-roots movement by people that opposed the "banker bailout" and advocated the auditing of the Federal Reserve. Demanding accountability and transparency in government makes one a nutcase? Sounds like somebody's been listening to the Southern Poverty Law Center's spin doctors. Have you even looked into what spawned the Tea Party movement? Obviously not.

First off, just because it was put in the Constitution 200+ years ago does not mean that it should BE part of our "rights" anymore, especially when it's a right that causes more harm then good.

Does that attitude extend to the other 9 Amendments? Words lead to violence and hate crimes, according to the propaganda. Do we need to take a second look at the 1st Amendment? How about the 4th? After all, it makes it so much harder to put violent people behind bars.

Secondly, they NEVER said that we had the right to bear arms against the goverment. Where your getting that from, one can only wonder, but I can gurantee that it's not from the Constitution.

Dude, seriously? I think the Framers' attitude is quite apparent. Have you ever even looked at the Declaration of Independence? Here's an interesting bit:

...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.

It is our right and our duty. You don't overthrow a despot by saying, "Please, oh please, stop treating us so badly." You don't do it by voting them out of office. Despotism, by its very definition, makes these things impossible. The Founders had to militarily resist oppression. That military resistance took the form of British subjects in the colonies. People. As in, "We the People".

Lets take a look at the line in the Constitution.

"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." Here is the exact line. It is plain to anyone that they are talking about the right to keep and bear arms, in the form of a MILITIA, shall not be infringed. It does not say "the right of every swinging dick to carry a .22 shotgun and a Berreta because he feels like it."

Your intimation that everyone who owns a gun is a "swinging dick" notwithstanding, that is what it says. I've covered this in another post in this thread, but perhaps in your brief skimming of this and other reasoned arguments, you missed it. It doesn't say that being part of the militia is a prerequisite to own a firearm. It says that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It also says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Here's what I said before; I'm not going to reword and retype all of this:

Think about it: the spirit of the Constitution is the guarantee of individual rights and a limit on the power of government. The Founders had just come through a long and bloody war and were well aware that without strict limits and being overseen by the people, a government will become tyrannical. What sense would it make then, for them to intend that only the government be permitted to bear arms? They knew that without an armed population, the Constitution would have been burned within a couple of generations as the power-hungry were drawn to positions of power. It's a lot more difficult to round up and throw into camps an armed population.

If we didn't have so many citizens owning guns in this country, we wouldn't be here on DGN. We'd be talking to each other on a state-owned internet, parroting government-approved opinions at each other. The Constitution would have been shredded and burned in a public spectacle by the King of America. The government knows (or at least, has known - all bets seem to be off nowadays) that if even 1% of the armed population of the U.S. were to rise up, the Bushes, Obamas, Kissingers, etc. would be running off with their tails between their legs. This is as it should be, and it's what the Framers of the Constitution intended. You seem to have been privy to a secret backroom meeting at the Constitutional Convention where they said, "Yeah, none of this is going to be relevant in two hundred years, so hey, fuck it."

Now, lets look up Militia, in terms of what our forefathers for the past 100+ years seen it as.

"An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces." OMG...a RESERVE ARMY??? You mean to say that we already HAVE these in place (Army Reserve & National Guard) and therefore don't need that group of 100+ redneck hunters as a wanna-be Militia in the backwoods, drinking moonshine and eating squirrel, to protect us? Holy Shit on a Stick, Batman.

Boy, you've really bough into the media-encouraged perception that everyone in a militia is a toothless, barely sapient hick, haven't you? Yes, there are groups who call themselves "militias" in order to imply a link to populist ideals. These are the guys who swill bad domestic beer, hate anyone who doesn't have white skin, and are usually full of FBI plants who encourage them to cross the line. (Do a simple search on "FBI militia provocateur") Then there are the legitimate militias, composed of ordinary citizens of all walks of life, who train peacefully on a regular basis and work with their local sheriff departments. Shocked? Wonder why you never hear about these guys in the mainstream media? The National Guard and Army Reserve are examples of militias, but certainly not the only ones. Again, why would the Founders have intended to concentrate firepower in the hands of the government. It makes absolutely no sense. They recognized that the nation they were founding could one day be just like the one they had just succeeded in defeating, and took steps to prevent tyranny from gaining a foothold. The Second Amendment is a huge part of that.

If your going to say your defending the Constitution, at least KNOW wtf it says, because if you don't, you'll end up looking less like Gaf The Horse with Tears and more like Gaf The Ass who cried Wolf.

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

A.

The Federalist Papers,

No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]

B.

The Federalist Papers,

No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]

C.

The Federalist Papers,

No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]

D.

There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase "well-regulated" means well-trained and disciplined — not "regulated" as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged

Oxford English Dictionary,

2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]

E.

The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.

F.

The Third Amendment: Expressly restrains the federal government from building a standing army and infiltrating it among the people ...and at the people's expense ... in times of peace. The Third Amendment runs against the idea of a permanent standing army or federalized National Guard in principle, if not by its words.

[torn asunder]

regarding nightgaunt's & gaf's last posts...

:clap:

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

So you have seen car-jackings with pistols? Did you recognize the pistol as something that is commonly owned by "over half" of Americans? What exactly is a normal, everyday pistol? I mean to you that could be a Bauer 25 but to me that could be a Taurus Judge.

Out of all the gun-owners I know, which includes many people, only about 25% of them have pistols...and most of those people have then loaded and WELL hidden. And since you are making so many claims here just where the FUCK did you get these numbers? PROOF! No I have not seen a car-jacking AT ALL but I never claimed that I saw a car-jacking with any of those weapons OR that a car-jacking would ever happen with those weapons.

Wow...way to go on the EXTREME there and take what I said WAY OUT of context...you are just looking for a fight aren't you? Stereotyping the people that own firearms, making wild claims with NO PROOF, and telling others not to treat you the way that you are treating them.

Serious question here...do you even know what a gun is or did you just go nuts on conspiracy packed youtube videos?

out of the 100 legal gun owners I know, every single one of them has a pistol...EVERY SINGLE ONE. Also, how good of a hidding spot are you talking about? I've seen programs where they show how easy it is to crack a home safe, gun cabinet, or that 95% or your "safe hiding spots" are easy for any crook with half a brain to find.

I am not making wild claims without proof, nor am I stereo-typing. It's simple fact that these people exist, and the proof is in KNOWING lots of criminals. Ask anyone thats committed a robbery with a gun...did they use a pistol, or an uzi? 9-outta-10 will say pistol, and about the same number will admit it was a stolen pistol.

and PLEASE give my name to Homeland Security....it's not BASHING the Constitution, it's called READING ALL OF IT, which the majority of Americans, including the obvious several of you, have not bothered to read the entire thing. It's called UNDERSTANDING that some of it's wording and goals are simply out of date and need to be revised.

If we are going to fight over the Admendments, that means that racial slurs and offensive/suggestive language is covered by free speech, which if thats true, then every sexual harassment lawsuit which was verbal only is to be tossed out of court; every hate crime that was verbal only: tossed out of court; and censorship is an illegal action.

Without a standing army, which is "Unconstitutional", we could very well all been raised Nazi's, and instead of a President that we can elect, we would have a Furher that would "cleanse our existance of the Jewish plague".(deep, deep sarcasm starts here) Damn you, Unconstitutional standing army that keeps our existance safe and gurantee's the many freedoms and rights we have. Damn the fact that we want freedom and rights without any kind of payment for it. Oh, and damn you, all you service men and women in that Unconstitutional standing army that laid down your life for us to be able to have the right to look for what jobs we want, or pick what food we have, or have all the entertaining (and educational) shows on the TV's that we buy, and be able to express ourselves in dress, speech, etc. (sarcasm ends here) THATS the attitude your arguing for. Your arguement spits and pisses on all those lost lives for the freedoms that you and I enjoy. I will not be that guy.

I am HAPPY to be the guy to realize that the generations before me realized that certian parts of the Constitution were not going to work anymore. Next time, THINK before you speak. If changes were never made, consider the world we might be living in right now, had our goverment not bothered to make Adjustments.

[candyman]

Good job trying to turn this into a black and white issue which it is not. The fact that you know 100 gun owners really means nothing because that is 100 people out of, well it doesn't matter since there is no statistical that would make it into a logical representation of a populace even if you considered statistics used on humans to be accurate.

Go sit down and read the firearm laws that the Swiss have. And don't assume right away that my point is more guns mean fewer crimes.

We have a major issue with guns coming over our borders and that is an unavoidable issue. You have yet to explain to me WHY any criminal would possibly go through the trouble of stealing guns from a home when he could just as easily get a weapon for cheap? For one he would not have to worry about serial numbers?

If a criminal with half a brain makes it into my home I have nothing to worry about...I have my full brain at work, sorry.

You CANNOT say that you are not making wild claims without proof...because you have not provided any proof. You also CANNOT say that you are not stereotyping...unless you use a different name for it. No crap they exist...there are alot of people that exist and you still have to proof one way or another that these people make up a significant portion...its like the people with no medical or scientific backgrounds that are putting specific numbers and "facts" on indoor smoking based on their own studies that include how their clothes smell and how they feel after coming home from the bar. Good, you know alot of gun owners and apparently are on speaking terms with a few criminals that steal guns and use them in crimes...you have plenty of people to run to if something goes wrong.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Next time, THINK before you speak.

You should try that.

[Nightgaunt]

IoRE, with respect, I must say that I've yet to see a reasoned or cogent argument from you in this thread, and no thoughtful response to the points others have tried to make. I've seen you make references, twice, to television programs you've watched. I've seen straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, and converse fallacies of accident, but nothing of any true substance. "All the gun owners I know own a pistol, therefore every gun owner owns a pistol," is not a logical argument. I'm a gun owner, but all I own is a rifle. That's me. I don't turn around however, and say that based on my experience, zero or very few gun owners own pistols.

Regarding the Constitution and people needing to understand "that some of it's (sic) wording and goals are simply out of date and need to be revised," my opinion, again, with respect, is that there is something you don't seem to grasp about the Constitution. It wasn't written by well-meaning simpletons in frock coats who never considered anything past their own era. The Constitution is a beautifully-crafted document that details a system of checks and balances meant to keep the Federal government from straying outside a very narrow mandate. It, along with the Bill of Rights, goes to great lengths to say that the People are in charge and that anything not assigned to the Federal government falls to the individual States or to the People. It is a document in balance, each element interacting with other elements. When you start mucking about with changing something like that, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The Framers knew that new issues would come up over the years and allowed for the addition of new Amendments. They purposely made it difficult to alter, and set up a process by which the will of the People had to be accounted for. Our problems have arisen not from flaws or irrelevancies in the Constitution, but by the Federal government's circumvention of Constitutional law, and a lazy, complacent citizenry. A good example of this is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Here's something that you said that actually disturbed me and tells me that you do not have a firm understanding of how we derive our rights:

First off, just because it was put in the Constitution 200+ years ago does not mean that it should BE part of our "rights" anymore, especially when it's a right that causes more harm then good.

Right off the bat, I noticed that you used quotation marks when referring to rights. Is it that you hold the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights in disdain? Are you implying that we don't really have rights? I'd like to know where you're coming from on that score. Second, you don't seem to be able to get your mind around the idea that our rights, as described in the Bill of Rights, do not derive from government. We are not granted these rights by the Constitution, Congress, Barack Obama, Cookie Monster, or even Oprah. Our rights are natural rights, enjoyed by all by virtue of being human. What the Framers were saying here is basically, "Here's all the stuff you have a right to as sapient beings. You know this already. What we're saying is that government can't grant you these rights and it especially can't take them away." The idea that government can neither grant nor rescind natural rights is central to the Republic! Even if you had a huge grass roots movement and got Congress to draft legislation making everyone in the country worship in a particular way, you couldn't do it. The first ten Amendments are declaratory and restrictive, meaning that they restrict and supersede all previous parts of the Constitution and any Amendments made after them. If the Second Amendment was rewritten to specifically include language forbidding citizens to own guns, why on earth do you think it would stop there? The whole house of cards would come a-tumblin' down. There are plenty of people who feel the way you do concerning the 2nd Amendment, about the 1st Amendment. As a wise muppet once said, "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."

Finally, you seem to mistake the idea of a "standing army" in the context of this discussion as being the same as our armed forces. What the Founders worried about was an army maintained for oppressive purposes. It's the reason we don't have troops engaging in displays of force in our public squares. It's the reason for the 3rd Amendment. It's the reason we don't have Federal troops with machine guns on every street corner.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, VP of the United States 1813-1814, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, August 17, 1789

I find your tirade accusing people of spitting on our servicemen and -women and being unpatriotic patently offensive, boorish, and childish.

**Edited for grammar.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Nightgaunt

[n0Mad]

Whether you're for guns, against guns, or somewhere in the middle, this is an interesting survey that gets you thinking about what you believe, and why you believe it.

[phee]

Yeah I am very much in the middle on this one

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I'm still trying to figure out what a .22 shotgun is.

[phee]

I'm still trying to figure out what a .22 shotgun is.

First image in google search....

(and no I have no idea either)

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

First image in google search....

(and no I have no idea either)

I have that same 20gauge! Never seen that insert before... not sure I would trust it.

[phee]

I have that same 20gauge! Never seen that insert before... not sure I would trust it.

Coolness

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

IoRE, with respect, I must say that I've yet to see a reasoned or cogent argument from you in this thread, and no thoughtful response to the points others have tried to make. I've seen you make references, twice, to television programs you've watched. I've seen straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, and converse fallacies of accident, but nothing of any true substance. "All the gun owners I know own a pistol, therefore every gun owner owns a pistol," is not a logical argument. I'm a gun owner, but all I own is a rifle. That's me. I don't turn around however, and say that based on my experience, zero or very few gun owners own pistols.

I never said that they ONLY own pistols...i said that all the ones I know own pistols. I never excluded any other firearm. I have, however, stated that the pistol, in it's many designs/ manufacturers, are more widely used and kept then say an AK47, which has been implied to be some massively used weapon in crimes all over. Not many people are flashing AK47's at a crime, simply because they are hard to conceal and harder to toss. The reason that most criminals would rather/do use a weapon stolen from residentials is that, if it is found, you have to question the purchaser first, and in cases where that gun is a private fire-arm of military personal/ member of a police force, the investigations are extensive and can muck up an arrest, if any is made.

Regarding the Constitution and people needing to understand "that some of it's (sic) wording and goals are simply out of date and need to be revised," my opinion, again, with respect, is that there is something you don't seem to grasp about the Constitution. It wasn't written by well-meaning simpletons in frock coats who never considered anything past their own era. The Constitution is a beautifully-crafted document that details a system of checks and balances meant to keep the Federal government from straying outside a very narrow mandate. It, along with the Bill of Rights, goes to great lengths to say that the People are in charge and that anything not assigned to the Federal government falls to the individual States or to the People. It is a document in balance, each element interacting with other elements. When you start mucking about with changing something like that, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The Framers knew that new issues would come up over the years and allowed for the addition of new Amendments. They purposely made it difficult to alter, and set up a process by which the will of the People had to be accounted for. Our problems have arisen not from flaws or irrelevancies in the Constitution, but by the Federal government's circumvention of Constitutional law, and a lazy, complacent citizenry. A good example of this is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Here's something that you said that actually disturbed me and tells me that you do not have a firm understanding of how we derive our rights:

Right off the bat, I noticed that you used quotation marks when referring to rights. Is it that you hold the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights in disdain? Are you implying that we don't really have rights? I'd like to know where you're coming from on that score. Second, you don't seem to be able to get your mind around the idea that our rights, as described in the Bill of Rights, do not derive from government. We are not granted these rights by the Constitution, Congress, Barack Obama, Cookie Monster, or even Oprah. Our rights are natural rights, enjoyed by all by virtue of being human. What the Framers were saying here is basically, "Here's all the stuff you have a right to as sapient beings. You know this already. What we're saying is that government can't grant you these rights and it especially can't take them away." The idea that government can neither grant nor rescind natural rights is central to the Republic! Even if you had a huge grass roots movement and got Congress to draft legislation making everyone in the country worship in a particular way, you couldn't do it. The first ten Amendments are declaratory and restrictive, meaning that they restrict and supersede all previous parts of the Constitution and any Amendments made after them. If the Second Amendment was rewritten to specifically include language forbidding citizens to own guns, why on earth do you think it would stop there? The whole house of cards would come a-tumblin' down. There are plenty of people who feel the way you do concerning the 2nd Amendment, about the 1st Amendment. As a wise muppet once said, "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."

Natural right? So they were natural rights for all the slaves that were owned by our founding fathers? Natural rights for African American slaves that WERE rescinded by our forefathers....Excuse me if I find it to be bullshit to talk about "natural rights of all sapient beings" from our forefathers, who turned around and denied many of these rights to others that sat at their back door. Without the Constitution, which actually frames our rights as AMERICAN CITIZENS, and not just sapient beings, our world would be very differrent. These are not things that every person just has, because in many countries, it's not natural for them, nor is it allowed. It's a document for OUR rights as American Citizens, and nothing more.

Finally, you seem to mistake the idea of a "standing army" in the context of this discussion as being the same as our armed forces. What the Founders worried about was an army maintained for oppressive purposes. It's the reason we don't have troops engaging in displays of force in our public squares. It's the reason for the 3rd Amendment. It's the reason we don't have Federal troops with machine guns on every street corner.

Quote="A standing army is an army composed of full-time career soldiers who 'stand over', in other words, who do not disband during times of peace." That is the definition of the term "Standing Army". A standing army is our military branches, which means that our Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Army are all Unconstitutional by what you deem to be "natural rights". It IS the same as our Armed Forces. Our service men and women do not quit the armed services when they are home. They are still registered, and active, members of the military, and therefore are part of a....hold on....STANDING ARMY.

The Constitution is a document that says "Rights", but what it really is happens to be a documentation of our PRIVLEDGES as American Citizens....which is the reason that slaves were not given the same "rights"...because they were not citizens.

Edited April 6, 2010 by IsleofRhodesEnt

[candyman]

I have that same 20gauge! Never seen that insert before... not sure I would trust it.

It is probably as safe as the add on for BB guns that they make to shoot .22 short round out of...just clamp in on the end and the BB sets off the .22 round...don't want to be around when it does fire though...

[candyman]

The Constitution is a document that says "Rights", but what it really is happens to be a documentation of our PRIVLEDGES as American Citizens....which is the reason that slaves were not given the same "rights"...because they were not citizens.

Wait, you said not many people use AK's in a crime because they are hard to conceal and carry? Have you held one before? Even with the full wood stock and muzzle flash on a base model you are still looking at a fairly compact and light weapon. Now most people with the AK get the folding stock which takes alot of length and weight off the gun...then most go and re-crown the barrel and add a new muzzle break that makes it even shorter. Then there is the machine pistol conversions and all the other shit you can do...

Have you not noticed the changes that have taken place since slavery was ended? I believe that if you did it would save alot of time and you wouldn't be writing that stuff.

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

Wait, you said not many people use AK's in a crime because they are hard to conceal and carry? Have you held one before? Even with the full wood stock and muzzle flash on a base model you are still looking at a fairly compact and light weapon. Now most people with the AK get the folding stock which takes alot of length and weight off the gun...then most go and re-crown the barrel and add a new muzzle break that makes it even shorter. Then there is the machine pistol conversions and all the other shit you can do...

Have you not noticed the changes that have taken place since slavery was ended? I believe that if you did it would save alot of time and you wouldn't be writing that stuff.

No, I have never held an AK47, but I have seen one up close, and while I admit it does not look immensely unwieldly, I will say that it would be hard to stuff in the back of a pants waistline without someone easily noticing, while a pistol is practically designed to be surpremely concealable.

And yes, lots of changes have taken place since slavery ended, but look how long it took between the penning of the Declaration and the Bill of Rights and the ending of Slavery, and then the additional length of time for African Americans to get the full "rights" of American Citizens.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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 — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

unalienable - You should all look that word up.

[Nightgaunt]

These are not things that every person just has, because in many countries, it's not natural for them, nor is it allowed. It's a document for OUR rights as American Citizens, and nothing more.

Facepalm.

Quote="A standing army is an army composed of full-time career soldiers who 'stand over', in other words, who do not disband during times of peace." That is the definition of the term "Standing Army". A standing army is our military branches, which means that our Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Army are all Unconstitutional by what you deem to be "natural rights". It IS the same as our Armed Forces. Our service men and women do not quit the armed services when they are home. They are still registered, and active, members of the military, and therefore are part of a....hold on....STANDING ARMY.

I said, "in the context of this discussion", meaning the kind of standing army the Founders were against. The kind that is deployed on home soil when not abroad to police the citizenry. You really do not even want to understand what anyone else is saying. Please, just accept that there are Americans who don't want to be told how to live their lives, alien as that concept may be to you, and leave it at that.

Jesus god, thank you, Gaf, for the quote. I think I'm done with this "debate".

Edited April 6, 2010 by Nightgaunt